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-00010339.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 653) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 1, 2022. The text discusses the Court's evaluation of 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. The Court concludes that while the Juror's answers were incorrect, they were not 'deliberately inaccurate,' accepting the Juror's testimony (given under immunity) that he rushed through the form carelessly. The Court cites the Juror's demeanor and consistency as reasons for crediting his testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00010324.jpg
This document is the first page of an Opinion & Order filed on April 1, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the allegation that 'Juror 50' provided inaccurate information regarding a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standards for impartial juries and notes that an uncommon post-trial hearing was conducted to investigate the juror's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010310.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 649) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on March 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by lying on a questionnaire about his own history of sexual abuse, which the defense argues closely paralleled the abuse described by victims at the trial. The filing highlights that the juror was abused by a familiar person (his stepbrother), mirroring the allegations against Epstein and Maxwell, and argues he would have been struck for cause had he been honest.
DOJ-OGR-00010306.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 16 of 16) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated March 15, 2022. The document argues that the defendant's motion for a new trial should be denied based on reasons in the Government's memorandum. It is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and four Assistant US Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00010283.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (likely a defense motion) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that certain counts in the indictment are multiplicitous. It details how the government incorporated the allegations of a witness named Carolyn (covering 2001-2004) into existing Mann Act conspiracies dating back to 1994, alongside victims Jane and Annie. The text highlights that Maxwell allegedly invited Carolyn to travel from Florida with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010272.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 647, filed March 11, 2022) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury may have erroneously convicted Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four based on a finding that she intended sexual activity to occur in New Mexico, rather than New York as required by law. The text cites a 'Jury Note' (Court Exhibit #15) as evidence that the jury was confused about the location requirement and asserts the Court failed to correct this misunderstanding.
DOJ-OGR-00010260.jpg
This document is page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It details an inquiry by the Court into a witness or potential juror's interactions with reporters regarding their personal history of sexual abuse. Following the questioning, a sidebar conference occurs where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests the Judge ask the individual about their knowledge of the case summary, noting the individual admitted to knowing the case was about sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010190.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, dated March 7, 2013. It primarily serves as a character reference for a defendant named 'David,' detailing his 15 years of volunteer work as a youth sports coach in Hinsdale and his role as a father. A footnote discusses the serious health issues of an individual named Theresa (referenced via a letter from Theresa Parse) dating back to 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00010145.jpg
This document is a page from the Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Gillers, likely submitted as an exhibit in a court case (possibly as an expert witness). It details his legal and public service activities between 1979 and 1992, including roles with the ABA, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the David Dinkins Mayoral Transition Search Committee. It also lists his bar memberships in New York and various federal courts. The document bears stamps from multiple court filings, including a 2012 criminal case and a 2022 civil case (likely Guiffre v. Maxwell), and a DOJ production number.
DOJ-OGR-00010126.jpg
This document is the first page of a declaration by Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU, filed on April 6, 2012, in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. Gillers outlines his qualifications and states he was asked to address whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard met their ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1.' The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice release (DOJ-OGR stamp), though the specific text on this page relates to the Daugerdas tax fraud case rather than explicitly mentioning Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00009918.jpg
This document contains transcript pages 101-104 from the case United States v. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. The witness, Catherine M. Conrad, a former juror in the case, initially asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege regarding her previous voir dire testimony but is subsequently granted immunity by the Court. Under questioning by attorney Mr. Gair, Conrad admits to lies and omissions during her jury service selection in 2011 and confirms she called Judge Pauley's chambers earlier that morning to state she would not attend court.
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, arguing for a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. The defense argues that a second juror (besides Juror No. 50) failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, citing a New York Times article and Juror No. 50's statements as evidence. The document also argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery regarding communications outside of deliberations, specifically referencing social media material.
DOJ-OGR-00009881.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 644) dated March 11, 2022, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that Maxwell does not need to prove prejudice or that an innocent person was convicted to warrant a new trial. It counters government arguments that discourage inquiries into juror misconduct, citing case law (Tanner v. United States, United States v. Ianniello) regarding the sanctity of jury deliberations and the right to an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009857.jpg
This document is a court exhibit, specifically page 4 of 16 from Document 643-2, filed on March 11, 2022, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-RA). The exhibit is a photograph of a juror from the trial, originally published in a DailyMail.com article. The document includes the photo credit for John M. Mantel, the URL to the source article, and a Department of Justice Bates number (DOJ-OGR-00009857).
DOJ-OGR-00009856.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on March 11, 2022. It consists of a printout of a Daily Mail article featuring a photograph of a juror named 'Scotty' who served in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The caption details that Scotty was initially skeptical of the victims and believed in the presumption of innocence before the evidence convinced the panel.
DOJ-OGR-00009855.jpg
This document is a printout of a Daily Mail article filed as a court exhibit (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) on March 11, 2022. It details statements made by a juror named 'David' following the guilty verdict of Ghislaine Maxwell, where he describes her as a 'predator' who was 'just as guilty as Epstein.' The text also notes legal concerns regarding David's potential failure to disclose being a victim of sexual abuse during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009843.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated March 11, 2022. It discusses a dispute regarding 'Juror 50', who has requested access to his own voir dire transcript and juror questionnaire; the defense opposes this, arguing it would prejudice the investigation into the juror's conduct, while the government supports the juror's right to access a document he authored. The text also references a separate motion by The New York Times to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00009839.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal filing (Document 643, filed March 11, 2022) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents legal arguments citing precedents (Guzman Loera, Bin Laden, Martha Stewart) to oppose an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations based solely on unsworn media reports. The filing argues that newspaper articles and hearsay do not constitute 'incontrovertible evidence' required to justify post-trial juror inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00009828.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Doc 643) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It is likely a government response arguing against a retrial, specifically refuting the defendant's claims that 'Juror 50' lied about social media accounts or held implied bias. The text distinguishes the current situation from the 'Daugerdas' precedent and asserts that even if the juror had answered truthfully about social media, they would not have been struck for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009821.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 643) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains the Government's legal argument arguing that the Defendant's claims regarding juror bias are unpersuasive. The text defines 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias, citing precedents such as United States v. Torres and Smith v. Phillips to argue that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in a post-trial context.
DOJ-OGR-00009813.jpg
This is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 643) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to meet the 'McDonough test' requirements to secure a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically stating that the defendant must prove the juror committed a 'deliberate falsehood' rather than an honest mistake. Despite this, the Government notes that it consents to a 'limited hearing' on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009778.jpg
This is page 21 of a court filing (Document 643-1) dated March 11, 2022, containing a completed questionnaire for Juror ID 50. The juror affirms (by checking boxes) that their knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell would not prevent them from being fair and impartial, and that they could decide the case based solely on the evidence presented at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009765.jpg
This document is page 8 (filed as page 7 of 30) of a completed juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror confirms they have no beliefs preventing them from rendering a verdict, agrees to follow the judge's instructions on the law, and accepts the presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00009752.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against providing discovery materials (specifically a questionnaire) to 'Juror No. 50.' The prosecution contends that releasing this information would allow the juror to manipulate their testimony and argues that the juror lacks standing, citing various legal precedents. The document suggests Juror No. 50 attempted to destroy evidence and flee the media, and mentions the possibility of future charges for perjury or criminal contempt.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity