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-00016751.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text records a judge providing legal guidance regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence under Rule 613(b). The judge cites specific case law (Almonte, Leonardi) to explain that law enforcement notes generally do not prove inconsistency unless the witness subscribed to them or the interviewing officer is called as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016728.jpg
This is a single page (245 of 246) from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the very end of a session involving the direct examination of a witness named Hyppolite. The presiding judge adjourns the court to December 17, 2021, at 8:45 a.m., noting that the 'charge' (jury instructions) will be given 'tomorrow.'
DOJ-OGR-00016640.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of expert witness Loftus (likely Elizabeth Loftus), who is testifying about the science of memory, specifically addressing how post-event information, personal motives, and the trustworthiness of information sources can influence the creation of false memories. The witness confirms that people are more likely to accept suggestive information if it fits their prior beliefs or comes from a trusted source.
DOJ-OGR-00016608.jpg
This document is page 125 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely memory expert Elizabeth Loftus). The testimony focuses on the psychology of memory, specifically the 'retention stage,' and how 'post-event suggestion' and misinformation can contaminate, alter, or distort a witness's memory over time.
DOJ-OGR-00016596.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of an expert witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus). The testimony focuses on the 'misinformation effect' in memory science, describing experiments where witnesses to simulated accidents incorporate false post-event information (such as a yield sign replacing a stop sign) into their memories, rendering them inaccurate.
DOJ-OGR-00016577.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Sud. The testimony focuses on the witness's role at Shoppers Travel, detailing the process of booking travel, billing customers via credit card or check, and recording invoices in the QuickBooks accounting system.
DOJ-OGR-00016516.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa by an attorney named Mr. Everdell. Espinosa testifies that she is currently 55, lives in California, works as an executive assistant to a CEO, and establishes that she was 28 years old and living in Midtown in October 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016504.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a Prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) and the Judge regarding the logistical handling of a witness who has tested positive for COVID-19. The government indicates they will not contest the witness's unavailability under Rule 15 if a positive test exists.
DOJ-OGR-00013287.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim discusses two exhibits (823 and 824) with the Judge. Exhibit 823 concerns the employment start date of Sky Roberts around the year 2000, while Exhibit 824 is an insurance document listing Sky Roberts' dependents, specifically naming his daughter, Virginia Roberts. The defense argues these are not proper business records as the employee Ms. Gill, who might testify to them, did not start employment until 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00013108.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies about being introduced to Ghislaine Maxwell by Virginia (Giuffre) in a kitchen. Maxwell instructed Virginia to take Carolyn upstairs to 'show her what to do,' after which Carolyn describes entering Jeffrey Epstein's bedroom and bathroom, providing specific details about the layout and furniture, including an 'ugly polka-dotted couch.'
DOJ-OGR-00013084.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The testimony concerns the chain of custody for a specific hard drive seized in July 2007. Flatley admits that when he received the evidence box containing three copies of the drive, the evidence tape was already broken and the box featured a xerox of a different hard drive on the front.
DOJ-OGR-00013054.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Meder, focusing on the provenance of specific photographs entered into evidence. The questioning establishes that the witness testified about photos retrieved from CDs, rather than photos physically displayed on the walls of 'the house.'
DOJ-OGR-00013044.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Meder by prosecutor Ms. Comey, regarding the admission of a photograph (Government Exhibit 343) found on a CD (logged as 1B63). The witness confirms the photograph depicts Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and the judge admits the exhibit into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Menninger.
DOJ-OGR-00010518.jpg
This document is a page from a forensic-psychiatric report filed in June 2022 regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It details an interview with her lawyer and acquaintance, Leah Saffian, who describes Maxwell's mental deterioration, sleep deprivation, and cognitive struggles due to 'quasi-solitary confinement' and hostile conditions. Saffian asserts Maxwell is not a flight risk and emphasizes her critical role in reviewing the millions of discovery documents for her own defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009275.jpg
This document is a placeholder page from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. It contains the standard text 'This Page Intentionally Left Blank', an exhibit number A-5671, and a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009274.jpg
This document is a court transcript index from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012. It has been filed as an exhibit (Document 616-1) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely as a legal precedent or impeachment material regarding witness testimony. The page lists the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, along with a list of Government and Defense (PMD) exhibits received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination and dismissal of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjury and misrepresentation regarding her service as a juror. Defense counsel (Mr. Gair) characterizes her as a 'pathological liar.' The proceedings also involve discussions about calling a U.S. Marshal and a law student named Mr. Benhamou as witnesses, though the latter is dismissed to return to class. The document appears to be an exhibit filed in a later case (likely Giuffre v. Maxwell based on the 2022 filing stamp).
DOJ-OGR-00009260.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the testimony of a witness named Conrad, who admits to lying during jury selection (voir dire) before Judge Pauley to avoid being dismissed. Specifically, she failed to disclose a 2007 arrest in Winslow, Arizona, for disorderly conduct following a domestic dispute with her husband, and subsequently skipped her court date.
DOJ-OGR-00009249.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 616-1) in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 4, 2022. The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her conduct as a juror in a previous trial. She admits to omitting the fact that she possessed a Juris Doctor (JD) degree during jury selection (voir dire) and is questioned aggressively about whether this omission constituted a lie to the Court and Judge Pauley. The testimony also covers discrepancies regarding her stated residence (Bronxville vs. Bronx Village).
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
This document is a court transcript from 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (dated Feb 15, 2012) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely the infamous Juror 50 from the Daugerdas trial) regarding her bias, her admission to 'Googling' the judge and attorneys, and her 'smart a-s-s' comments about Judge Pauley being a 'Clinton appointee.' This transcript was likely used in the Maxwell case to argue legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009226.jpg
This document is page 4 of 67 from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated February 24, 2022. It is a table of contents or index listing trial transcripts from Day 9 (March 15, 2011) through Day 27 (April 15, 2011), referencing page numbers A-730 through A-1786. The document originates from the DOJ (Department of Justice) as indicated by the footer.
DOJ-OGR-00009209.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Doc 616) from February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that Juror No. 50 deliberately lied on jury selection questionnaires (specifically Questions 25 and 48) regarding his history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse to avoid disqualification. The document cites various legal precedents (Greer, McDonough) to discuss the legal standards for juror bias and the necessity of a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009194.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iv') of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing legal precedents, specifically Second Circuit Court of Appeals cases, and Federal Rules (likely related to a motion for a new trial given the citation of Rule 33 and evidence rules regarding juror testimony). The page also cites an article by Jeremy Peterson regarding show trials.
DOJ-OGR-00009185.jpg
This document is a court exhibit (Page 11 of 12, Document 615-2) filed on February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It consists of a screenshot of a Daily Mail article dated January 26, 2022, featuring a photograph of a male juror sitting on a couch with a cat. The URL and title indicate the article discusses the juror's statement that the evidence convinced the panel Maxwell was a 'predator'.
DOJ-OGR-00009178.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed Feb 24, 2022) which contains a printout of a Daily Mail Online article dated Jan 26, 2022. The page features a photograph of a male juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial standing in a room holding a cat, with a headline stating the juror was convinced by the evidence that Maxwell was a predator. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009178.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity