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-00009695.jpg
This document is page 3 (Table of Contents) of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated March 11, 2022. It outlines arguments claiming Ghislaine Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because 'Juror No. 50' allegedly answered voir dire questions (specifically 25 and 48) falsely. The document also argues against Juror No. 50's right to intervene or receive discovery, noting the juror is currently under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009680.jpg
This document is page 19 of a filed juror questionnaire (Document 638) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 9, 2022. Juror ID 50 responds to questions 39, 40, and 41, indicating that their knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and his association with Ms. Maxwell would not prevent them from being impartial ('No' to bias questions) and affirming they can follow court instructions regarding evidence ('Yes' to following instructions). The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009680.
DOJ-OGR-00009669.jpg
This document is page 8 of a jury questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 9, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to questions regarding bias against law enforcement searches (Q15), bias regarding expert witnesses (Q16), and concerns about following instructions to avoid media coverage (Q17). The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009653.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists specific questions directed at a juror regarding their history of sexual abuse, participation in support groups, interactions with a therapist during the trial, and statements made to the media (Instagram and The Independent) about their trauma and stress.
DOJ-OGR-00009648.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions (numbers 19 and 20) addressed to an individual (likely a juror) regarding their answers on a jury questionnaire. Specifically, it probes whether the individual read, understood, and truthfully answered 'Question 25' regarding being a victim of a crime, noting that the individual answered 'No'.
DOJ-OGR-00009641.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 636) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It lists a series of questions (17-31) aimed at a respondent, focusing on grooming tactics (gifts, normalizing sexual topics), the timeline of reporting abuse, and the lasting traumatic impact of the events.
DOJ-OGR-00009639.jpg
This document is a legal filing dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell case, given the context of juror misconduct allegations). It outlines proposed questions the defense wants the Court to ask 'Juror 50' to determine if the juror lied on their questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The filing cites media reports from The Independent and the Daily Mail where the juror allegedly admitted to being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, contradicting their jury questionnaire answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009595.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) argues against a claim of multiplicity by distinguishing between two separate conspiracies involving the defendant. It details a 1990s scheme focused on grooming and mentoring victims for abuse at Epstein's properties, and a separate 2000s 'pyramid scheme' where victims were paid to recruit others for massage appointments.
DOJ-OGR-00009580.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text is a legal argument refuting the defense's interpretation of a jury note regarding accomplice liability and flight arrangements. It specifically addresses the victim 'Jane', debating whether Maxwell arranged her return flight from New Mexico and discussing corroborating evidence in flight logs versus commercial flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00009551.jpg
This court order page denies the Defendant's (Maxwell) request to investigate Juror 50's social media and to examine other jurors regarding a 'second juror' allegedly abused as a minor. The court rules that Juror 50's Instagram posts were personal and do not warrant a 'fishing expedition,' and that the theory regarding a second juror is unfounded speculation based on a New York Times article. Footnote 5 details a timeline of communications between the court and jurors regarding media harassment, noting that these communications will be shared with the parties under seal with redactions to protect juror privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00009549.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Court orders an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' committed misconduct by failing to disclose a history of sexual abuse and being a crime victim on jury selection questionnaires (Questions 48 and 25). The order cites interviews Juror 50 gave to The Independent and The Daily Mail in January 2022 where he admitted to being abused, which contradicts his sworn jury questionnaire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses a motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50' allegedly failing to disclose information (specifically regarding childhood sexual abuse) during voir dire. The text outlines the legal standards for such a motion, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*.
DOJ-OGR-00009539.jpg
This is the final signature page (page 3) of a court filing (Document 617) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The US Attorney's office argues that because Juror 50 has already spoken publicly, no redactions are justified for a specific motion, which should be docketed. The document is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00009527.jpg
This document is an Amended Sentencing Memorandum filed by the United States on March 18, 2013, regarding defendant David Parse. It outlines the procedural history, noting Parse's conviction on May 24, 2011, for obstructing IRS laws and mail fraud following an eleven-week trial involving 'one of the largest tax fraud schemes ever charged.' The document appears to be part of a larger case file (possibly related to the Jenkens & Gilchrist tax shelter case) that may have been included in a larger document production.
DOJ-OGR-00009522.jpg
This document is a financial spreadsheet titled 'Jenkens and Gilchrist Clients Restitution Calculation,' filed as an exhibit in court cases 1:20-cv-00330-PAE and 1:09-cr-00581-WHP. It lists numerous clients (individuals and couples) along with calculated tax deficiencies, interest, and total restitution amounts owed, primarily stemming from tax years 1998 and 1999. The document details significant financial figures, with some individuals like Arthur Frigo and John R. Georgius listed with total restitution amounts in the tens of millions of dollars.
DOJ-OGR-00009472.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a Curriculum Vitae or bibliography for legal scholar Stephen Gillers, filed as an exhibit in a legal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely US v. Maxwell). It lists publications authored by Gillers between 1999 and 2000 in various legal and news outlets such as The New York Times and The American Lawyer, covering topics like legal ethics, impeachment, and professional responsibility. The page contains a DOJ Bates stamp at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00009460.jpg
This document is a page from the Curriculum Vitae or publication list of Stephen Gillers, filed as Exhibit A-5856 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It lists academic legal articles authored by Gillers between 1987 and 1999, focusing on legal ethics, professionalism, and judicial independence. The text includes citations for publications in journals such as the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Yale Law Journal, and Fordham Urban Law Journal.
DOJ-OGR-00009451.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal memorandum or expert report (filed as part of court proceedings in 2012 and re-filed in 2022) analyzing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers. It cites case law regarding the 'adversary system' and specifically questions whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011. The text discusses the balance between client confidentiality and the duty of candor to the tribunal.
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (originally 2012, refiled 2022) discussing attorney ethics regarding the reporting of perjury (fraud on the tribunal). It cites a precedent case involving 'Doe,' arguing that an attorney must have actual knowledge, not just strong suspicion, of perjury before a duty to disclose arises. The author of this text notes in a footnote that they served as the expert witness for 'Doe' in a Connecticut disciplinary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009449.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of 29 from a court filing, discusses a lawyer's ethical obligations under various New York Rules of Professional Conduct. It emphasizes that a lawyer's duty to take remedial action, such as disclosing fraudulent conduct to a court, is triggered only by "actual knowledge," a subjective standard. The document cites the 1988 Second Circuit case 'Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee' to support the argument that a mere belief of wrongdoing is insufficient to compel disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00009431.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning focuses on legal ethics, specifically asking Berke if an attorney is obligated to report juror misconduct to the Court. Berke attempts to qualify his answer rather than giving a simple 'yes' or 'no,' stating he relies on ethical rules and commentary when such issues arise.
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein. The testimony concerns the drafting of a legal brief and whether the legal team knowingly omitted information regarding a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad prior to voir dire (jury selection). The witness explains their focus was on establishing identity rather than waiving rights regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring testimony by an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on when Edelstein and another individual, Theresa Trzaskoma, learned specific facts regarding a 'suspension' and whether this occurred via a Google search/investigation or after receiving a specific note/letter. Edelstein attempts to clarify the timeline of what was known on May 12th versus what was known when a legal brief was subsequently written.
DOJ-OGR-00009365.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is testifying about a July 22nd phone call with the Judge regarding the identification of jury consultants, specifically mentioning Mr. Donohue, Julie Blackman, and Mr. Schoeman. The testimony clarifies that Mr. Nardello performed investigative work but was not a jury consultant.
DOJ-OGR-00009315.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 Brune. The testimony details the composition of the legal defense team, identifying specific partners and associates (Edelstein, Hollander, Kim, Stapp) and their respective office locations (San Francisco and New York). It also mentions communications regarding issues during jury selection.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity