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-00017229.jpg
This document is page 208 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the legal definition of 'interstate commerce' in the context of sex trafficking, clarifying that actual travel is not required if the acts were economic in nature. It also introduces Instruction No. 30 regarding 'Aiding and abetting' for Counts Two, Four, and Six.
DOJ-OGR-00017226.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) containing Jury Instructions No. 25 and 26. It defines the legal elements for Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18 (18 U.S.C. § 1591). The instructions specify that the government must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt and explicitly state that this count relates solely to an individual named Carolyn during the period of 2001 to 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00017217.jpg
This page contains a transcript of jury instructions from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge explains the legal distinction between conspiracy charges and substantive charges. The text specifically details Instruction No. 13 regarding Count Two, citing Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, which defines the federal crime of enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity involving interstate travel.
DOJ-OGR-00017210.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains Jury Instruction No. 5, explicitly instructing the jury to avoid improper considerations such as discrimination or bias (conscious or unconscious) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's identity or economic status when reaching a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00017197.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey, arguing that witness testimony against Ghislaine Maxwell predating 2019 could not be a 'frame-job' because Jeffrey Epstein was still alive and considered the primary target ('big fish') at that time. The page argues that accusations made years prior invalidate the defense theory of a fabricated narrative against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00013954.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness named 'Sud' regarding the data entry of invoices and billing records into QuickBooks, specifically noting how individual passenger travel was often billed under a single company or group profile name.
DOJ-OGR-00013900.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on identifying the staff employed at Jeffrey Epstein's office during the mid-to-late 1990s (1996-1998). The witness lists specific names and roles, including the legal team (Jeff Schantz, Darren Indyke, Amanda Milroy), the accounting team (Harry Beller, Eric Gany, Bella, Gee), receptionists (Michelle Healy, Helen Kim), and an executive assistant (Maureen).
DOJ-OGR-00013623.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of witness 'A. Farmer' by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony details a trip to New York where the witness and her sister, Maria, were taken to see 'The Phantom of the Opera' by Epstein's driver, and later attended a movie ('Five Monkeys') with Epstein himself. The witness describes Epstein sitting between her and her sister at the movie theater and initiating unwanted physical contact by caressing and holding her hand.
DOJ-OGR-00013590.jpg
This document is the final page (49 of 49) of a court transcript index filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists the examination of witness Tracy Chapell by attorneys Mr. Rohrbach (Direct) and Mr. Everdell (Cross). It also indexes Government Exhibits 801-803 and Defendant Exhibit TC-1.
DOJ-OGR-00013512.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony confirms the location of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way. It also discusses a specific period when the main house was being renovated, requiring Epstein to stay at a rental property located south of El Brillo Way, across from the ocean.
DOJ-OGR-00013418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony reviews specific flight logs: Flight 1106 on May 5, 1998 (Teterboro to Bedford with Epstein and one other passenger) and Flight 818 on March 29, 1996 (Van Nuys to Santa Fe with Epstein as the sole passenger). The witness confirms they piloted these flights but did not pilot flights 819 and 820.
DOJ-OGR-00013394.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Rodgers, identified as a pilot, testifies to the authenticity of their flight logbook, stating entries were made within 30 minutes of flights. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully moves to admit the logbook as evidence (Exhibit 662 under seal and 662-R redacted) with no objection from the defense (Mr. Everdell).
DOJ-OGR-00013375.jpg
This document is page 97 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Hesse is being cross-examined regarding her precision in taking phone messages compared to other messages found on an exhibit labeled '1C'. The questioning highlights specific messages on the exhibit directed to 'Mr. Epstein' and 'Sarah'.
DOJ-OGR-00013368.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mrs. Hesse by Ms. Moe. The testimony concerns a message left by a person named Carolyn on March 11, 2003, and involves the introduction of Government Exhibit 3E after a correction from Exhibit 4B.
DOJ-OGR-00013339.jpg
This document is page 61 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Shawn. The testimony establishes that Shawn attended meetings with Epstein and received money from a woman named Carolyn, which was used to purchase drugs including marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy. Crucially, the witness confirms they never met or spoke to Ghislaine Maxwell, and the testimony notes the witness moved from Florida to Georgia in 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00013324.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The witness identifies Jeffrey Epstein in a photograph (Exhibit 112) and testifies about conversations with a person named Carolyn regarding interactions at Epstein's Palm Beach house involving Jeffrey, Sarah, and an unidentified woman. The page includes a procedural exchange where the judge corrects a ruling on a hearsay objection from 'sustained' to 'overruled'.
DOJ-OGR-00010769.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 688) filed on June 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It shows page 13 of a completed questionnaire for Juror ID: 2. The juror answered 'No' to questions regarding prior investigations (Q24), being a victim of a crime (Q25), or having legal disputes with US agencies such as the FBI or NYPD (Q26).
DOJ-OGR-00010761.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically a schedule information sheet for potential jurors. It outlines the dates for jury selection (Nov 16-19, 2021) and the start of the trial (Nov 29, 2021). The document clarifies that the jury will not be sequestered and sets a high bar ('extraordinary personal or financial hardship') for being excused from service.
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 583) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2022. It argues against the Defendant's request to delay public access to juror questionnaires, specifically citing the misconduct of 'Juror 50' as grounds for a new trial motion. The filing asserts that First Amendment rights and Second Circuit precedent (Lugosch) support immediate unsealing now that the trial has concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00010718.jpg
This document is a page from a victim impact statement filed in June 2022 for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The survivor describes the trauma of attending the trial in New York, expresses frustration that high-profile "enablers" (politicians and wealthy friends) have not been exposed, and characterizes Maxwell as the "manager" of a massive trafficking conspiracy who lacks human decency.
DOJ-OGR-00010716.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Document 675-2) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It appears to be a victim impact statement detailing the grooming and abuse tactics used by Epstein and Maxwell. The victim describes how they exploited her vulnerabilities—specifically her lack of a visa and desire to attend FIT—and accuses Maxwell of physically forcing her into Epstein's room to be raped and verbally abusing her regarding her weight.
DOJ-OGR-00010711.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing dated June 23, 2022, regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that victims named Sarah and Elizabeth should be entitled to deliver oral victim impact statements at the sentencing. The filing requests that if the Court doubts this entitlement, they be granted more time to brief the issue, noting they only had 48 hours to respond to a previous court order.
DOJ-OGR-00010706.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 675) from June 2022 arguing for the importance of allowing victims to speak at Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. It quotes Victim Impact Statements from two survivors, 'Sarah' (from England) and 'Elizabeth' (from Philadelphia), who describe the therapeutic value of the trial and the validation of their trauma after decades of silence. The document asserts that public victim statements serve the broader interest of building confidence in the justice system regarding the Maxwell conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00010702.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 675) from June 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the Court should hear from all victims of Maxwell's sex trafficking conspiracy during sentencing, citing legal precedents (such as United States v. Salutric) that allow judges to consider a defendant's broader criminal history and uncharged acts. The text emphasizes that victim impact statements regarding background and conduct are essential for determining a fair sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010694.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues for the right of victims named Sarah and Elizabeth to read their Victim Impact Statements at Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. It details the severe psychological and physical trauma suffered by both victims, including suicide attempts and hospitalizations, resulting from the 'Epstein/Maxwell trap.' The document cites the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA) and relevant case law to support the victims' right to be heard.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity