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-00010687.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on June 24, 2022. It consists of a single black-and-white photograph showing an unidentified person in a hospital bed with both legs heavily bandaged, suggesting a severe injury. The page is marked with a Department of Justice Bates number, indicating it is part of a legal production.
DOJ-OGR-00010686.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit 2' within court filing Document 674 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 24, 2022. The text indicates that the exhibit contains photos of Sarah Ransome in a hospital following her second suicide attempt.
DOJ-OGR-00010668.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 674) from June 2022, containing a victim impact statement addressed to the court. The anonymous author, a 45-year-old survivor with 19 years of sobriety, details the long-term psychological effects of Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse, including panic attacks and dissociation. The author expresses gratitude to the judge, jury, and prosecutors following their testimony in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010653.jpg
This document is a separator page designating 'Exhibit H' within a court filing for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. It contains a DOJ Bates stamp number DOJ-OGR-00010653 but no narrative text.
DOJ-OGR-00010642.jpg
This page is from a court filing dated June 24, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The content of the page is entirely redacted, leaving only the court header and the DOJ bates stamp visible.
DOJ-OGR-00010630.jpg
This document is Page 39 of 68 from a court filing (Document 672) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The entire content of the page has been redacted, leaving only the court header and the Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00010630) visible.
DOJ-OGR-00010628.jpg
This page is entirely redacted, containing only metadata headers and footers. It is identified as Page 37 of 68 from Document 672 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The document bears a Department of Justice footer identifier DOJ-OGR-00010628.
DOJ-OGR-00010624.jpg
This document is page 33 of 68 from a court filing (Document 672) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 24, 2022. The page contains a Department of Justice production number (DOJ-OGR-00010624) but the entire content of the page has been fully redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00010607.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 672) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated June 24, 2022. It is a Victim Impact Statement written by a 45-year-old woman who testified at the trial, detailing the long-term psychological effects of the abuse she suffered, including substance use disorder and PTSD. The author expresses gratitude to the court, the prosecutors, the jury, and Judge Nathan for the fair execution of the trial and the opportunity to seek justice.
DOJ-OGR-00010605.jpg
This document is a separator or cover page for 'Exhibit B' filed as part of a court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on June 24, 2022. The page contains no substantive content other than the case header, the exhibit label, and a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00010594.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the defense team (Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that specific individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—do not qualify as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) relative to the counts of conviction. The defense contends that because the federal charges specifically required the involvement of minors, and these women were either not minors or their interactions fell outside the indictment timeline, they are not statutory victims entitled to CVRA rights in this specific legal context.
DOJ-OGR-00010592.jpg
This document is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, filed on June 24, 2022. In the letter, Maxwell formally objects to Sarah Ransome, Maria Farmer, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant being legally characterized as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) for the purpose of sentencing. The defense argues these individuals do not meet the statutory requirements, specifically regarding their age at the time of alleged abuse, the timing relative to the indictment, and proximate harm resulting from the specific federal offenses of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00010589.jpg
This document is page 54 of a Government sentencing submission in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 22, 2022. The text argues for the imposition of a maximum $750,000 fine, notes that no forfeiture is sought due to a lack of identified property owned by the defendant used in the offense, and states that no restitution is sought because the six identified victims (Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa) have already been compensated via the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund or civil settlements.
DOJ-OGR-00010491.jpg
This document is a page from a character reference letter filed in court on June 15, 2022, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell prior to her sentencing. The anonymous author, a family friend of over 60 years, describes the difficult upbringing of the Maxwell children under their 'narcissistic' father, Robert Maxwell, and highlights Ghislaine's intelligence and work ethic at Oxford. The letter appeals to the judge for leniency, noting Ghislaine's regret over meeting Jeffrey Epstein and the harsh conditions she has endured in jail, including sleep deprivation.
DOJ-OGR-00010464.jpg
This document is page 17 (PDF page 18) of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the legal standards for sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), citing Supreme Court precedents like Gall and Nelson. The text argues that these statutory factors, specifically the need for just punishment and Ms. Maxwell's history, weigh heavily in favor of the proposed sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010449.jpg
This document is page 3 of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that a 240-month sentence recommended by Probation is excessive given the conditions of her confinement (solitary, threats against her life) and argues she should not receive a sentence appropriate for Epstein. It also provides context regarding the previous 'sweetheart deal' Epstein received in Florida under Alexander Acosta, noting the public outcry that followed.
DOJ-OGR-00010436.jpg
This document is page 15 (PDF page 19) of a legal filing from June 15, 2022, regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that applying specific sentencing guidelines (§ 4B1.5) results in an anomaly where Maxwell faces a harsher sentence range (292-365 months) than a hypothetical repeat sex offender (262-327 months). The text explicitly compares Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing it is unjust for her to face the same sentencing range as Epstein, whom the defense characterizes as 'indisputably the more culpable offender.'
DOJ-OGR-00010433.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on June 15, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding sentencing guidelines for sex offenders, citing Congressional intent from 1998 and the specific guideline USSG § 4B1.5. The text argues that sentence enhancements should be applied to 'Repeat and Dangerous' sex offenders who pose a continuing danger to the public, supported by quotes from Rep. Deborah Pryce and Sen. Orrin Hatch.
DOJ-OGR-00010419.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 662) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 15, 2022. The outline previews arguments against various sentencing enhancements (such as 'Undue Influence' and 'Aggravating Role') and argues that the 2003 sentencing guidelines should apply rather than the 2004 guidelines, proposing a sentence range of 51-63 months.
DOJ-OGR-00010413.jpg
Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim submitted a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan on May 10, 2022, requesting a two-day extension for Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing submission due to a pre-existing travel commitment. Although the government consented to the request, Judge Nathan explicitly denied the extension via an order stamped on the document dated May 11, 2022. The sentencing remained scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010411.jpg
This document is the final page of a court order from April 2022 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced by case number 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the defendant's motion regarding pre-indictment delay but grants the motion regarding multiplicity, ruling that Counts One and Five overlap with Count Three. Consequently, the conviction is formally entered on Counts Three, Four, and Six only, with sentencing scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010392.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court filing from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 29, 2022. It discusses specific jury instructions regarding witnesses 'Jane,' 'Kate,' and 'Annie,' clarifying jurisdictional boundaries (New York vs. New Mexico) and age of consent issues relative to New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The text explains that while testimony from Kate (who was over 17) and Annie (whose incidents occurred in NM) could not be used as the sole basis for conviction on specific counts, it was admissible to establish the Defendant's intent regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00010368.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's motions for acquittal (Rule 29) and to vacate convictions based on constructive amendment or prosecutorial delay (Rule 33), citing sufficient evidence and lack of prejudice. However, the Court rules in favor of the Defendant regarding 'multiplicitous' counts, concluding that Counts One, Three, and Five charge the same offense regarding a decade-long unlawful agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
This document is page 36 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically concerning the juror's history of sexual abuse and 'healing process.' The Court cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent inquiry into the juror's mental processes during deliberations and concludes that the juror's past trauma did not interfere with his ability to be fair and impartial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity