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-00019625.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (related to Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that protective orders regarding discovery documents in criminal cases are not subject to interlocutory appeal, citing Second Circuit precedents like U.S. v. Caparros and U.S. v. Pappas. The argument specifically asserts that Maxwell's jurisdictional arguments fail to meet the criteria for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019612.jpg
This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.
DOJ-OGR-00019601.jpg
Page 10 of a legal filing (Document 69) dated September 28, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The text argues for the validity of an interlocutory appeal under collateral order jurisdiction, countering the government's claim that issues have not been finally resolved. It discusses the government's use of subpoenas to obtain evidence for a criminal case and Maxwell's challenge to the legitimacy of those methods within the context of a civil appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019595.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 28, 2020, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-3061). The text argues that a district court's refusal to modify a protective order is immediately appealable under the 'collateral order doctrine.' The filing contends that the appeal is necessary to share 'critical new information' with Judge Preska before deposition materials in the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* are unsealed, arguing that post-judgment review would be moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.
DOJ-OGR-00019590.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. It contains a Certificate of Compliance signed by Adam Mueller confirming the motion meets word count limitations, and a Certificate of Service signed by Nicole Simmons confirming the filing of an 'Unopposed Motion for Leave to File under Seal' regarding Appendix Volume 2 via CM/ECF.
DOJ-OGR-00019577.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing dated August 24, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues for the ability to provide sealed materials to 'two arbiters' (likely judges in other civil cases) without violating a Protective Order, countering the government's claim that this would harm an ongoing criminal investigation. The document also contains a footnote objecting to the government providing ex parte information about an ongoing grand jury investigation to the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00019553.jpg
This is page 5 of a legal letter filed on August 21, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government, represented by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and AUSAs Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz, argues that the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in separate Civil Cases should be denied. The Government asserts this is an attempt to bypass protective orders and falsely accuse the Government and an unnamed 'Recipient' of malfeasance.
DOJ-OGR-00019522.jpg
This is the first page of a Proposed Protective Order filed on July 28, 2020, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, outlines the Government's intent to produce discovery materials to the defense while restricting their public dissemination to protect ongoing investigations, privacy, and prevent prejudicial publicity.
DOJ-OGR-00019516.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 32) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues against the defendant's request to publicly name individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Epstein or the defendant, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedents (Paris, Corley, Kelly) regarding privacy and safety. The Government advocates for a protective order that requires the use of pseudonyms (e.g., 'Victim-1') in public filings while allowing the defense to use names in sealed filings and internal investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019503.jpg
This is the first page of a Proposed Protective Order filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Judge Alison J. Nathan presides over the document, which outlines the Government's intent to produce discovery materials to the defense while limiting public disclosure to protect privacy, the ongoing investigation, and fair trial rights. The document establishes the legal framework for handling sensitive information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
DOJ-OGR-00019488.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 17) of an indictment filed on July 8, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It lists specific excerpts of testimony where the defendant denied giving massages to anyone, including Jeffrey Epstein and 'Minor Victim-2', and denied knowledge of Epstein's sexual activities with others. These statements are underlined and cited under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 (Perjury), indicating these are the specific false declarations charged in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00019485.jpg
This page of an indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell details specific allegations of abuse and recruitment. It charges that in 1996, Maxwell personally gave an unsolicited massage to a topless minor in New Mexico, and between 1994-1995, encouraged another minor to massage Jeffrey Epstein in London knowing abuse would occur. It also introduces 'Count Four,' charging Maxwell with the transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00019471.jpg
This document is a PACER transaction receipt and a partial court docket sheet generated on September 18, 2020. It details legal proceedings regarding Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically focusing on the transmission of an appeal to the US Court of Appeals and the placement of two sealed documents into a vault on September 10, 2020. The receipt indicates a user (amuell01) accessed the docket report under the client code 'Maxwell Criminal'.
DOJ-OGR-00019450.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order (likely from the Southern District of New York) dated July 31, 2020. The court is analyzing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to stay a civil case due to her pending criminal indictment. The judge finds that there is significant factual overlap between the civil and criminal matters, which weighs in favor of granting the stay to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019438.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 39 of 58) of a legal filing submitted on September 24, 2020, for Case 20-3061. It lists attorneys Ty Gee and Adam Mueller of the Denver-based law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. as counsel for the Defendant-Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019436.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that Judge Preska erred by ignoring Ghislaine Maxwell's 'reliance argument.' It states that Maxwell did not plead the Fifth Amendment during her depositions because she relied on a civil protective order and the *Martindell* precedent, which protects witness testimony from being used by the Government for criminal investigations or perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00019407.jpg
This is page 8 of a 58-page legal document associated with Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. The entire substantive content of the page is fully redacted with black bars. The only visible text is the case header information and the footer containing the page number '3' and the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00019407'.
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing from September 2020, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to consolidate a civil appeal with issues related to her criminal case. The text argues that Maxwell is prematurely trying to challenge the Government's evidence-gathering methods (subpoenas) in the appellate court before Judge Nathan has had the opportunity to rule on them in the District Court criminal trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) argues that an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various legal precedents (Nelson, Midland Asphalt, Punn) to support the argument that her rights to a fair trial can be vindicated after a final judgment or during the criminal trial itself. It addresses Maxwell's concern that unsealing documents in civil cases might prejudice her criminal trial, asserting she can raise those issues in the criminal case if they arise.
DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Document 38, Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It argues against an immediate appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the unsealing of civil case documents. The text contends that any potential prejudice to her criminal trial (due to publicity) can be adequately addressed through a standard appeal after a final judgment, rather than an interlocutory appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text contains legal arguments regarding the timing of appellate reviews, specifically citing precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that immediate appeals are generally not granted if post-judgment relief (like a reversal after a trial) can adequately protect the defendant's rights. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019359.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (dated September 16, 2020) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The text argues that the court order denying Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not eligible for interlocutory appeal. It addresses Maxwell's concern that her inability to use criminal discovery in civil litigation might lead to the unsealing of civil documents, potentially prejudicing her criminal trial, by stating she can raise these prejudice issues during the criminal trial itself.
DOJ-OGR-00019328.jpg
A Memorandum Opinion and Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on September 2, 2020. The order addresses Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order to allow her to file discovery materials in civil cases under seal. The Judge approves the Government's proposed redactions to the motion filings, citing the need to protect an ongoing grand jury investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity