Department of Justice (DOJ)
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 opposition to proposed changes in Section 211, which would alter the victim certification pro... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 213, which would remove law enforcement from the in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 211, specifically changing 'and' to 'or' in the cer... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | DOJ opposition to proposed changes in Section 213, which would remove law enforcement from the in... | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-11 | Legal communication | The French Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice explaining its nat... | Paris, France | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009297.jpg
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' It lists keywords alphabetically from 'revisit' to 'sessions', along with their frequency counts and page/line citations. The document bears a header indicating it was filed on February 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), suggesting it was submitted as an exhibit in that trial.
DOJ-OGR-00003207.jpg
This document, page 31 of a DOJ report (likely the OGR report), details the professional biographies and specific roles of USAO officials Jeffrey Sloman, Matthew Menchel, and Andrew Lourie in the Epstein investigation and the negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights Sloman's negotiation of an NPA addendum, Menchel's communication of the two-year plea deal, and Lourie's role in the NPA negotiations before his departure. The text also notes Alexander Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019 due to criticism regarding the Epstein case.
DOJ-OGR-00003183.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the timeline following Jeffrey Epstein's August 2019 suicide, including the dismissal of his indictment in SDNY and the conclusion of CVRA litigation in Florida where the court found the government had not litigated in bad faith but had violated the CVRA. It summarizes the appellate history of 'Jane Doe 1' seeking a writ of mandamus in the 11th Circuit regarding the non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Additionally, it marks the initiation of the OPR investigation into DOJ attorney misconduct, triggered by a request from Senator Ben Sasse following the Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting.
DOJ-OGR-00003130.jpg
This document is page 196 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding 'Minor Victim-3' to demonstrate the defendant's intent and modus operandi, citing legal precedents (McDarrah, Brand). It also argues that the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One or Three based on multiplicity is premature under Second Circuit precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00003129.jpg
This document is page 195 of 239 from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding 'Minor Victim-3' under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), stating that the defendant's grooming patterns were idiosyncratic and that the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial compared to the charges involving Victims 1 and 2. It explicitly states the defendant witnessed and participated in the abuse of victims at the hands of Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00003128.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) arguing for the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b). It details the defendant's 'modus operandi' of befriending minors (specifically Minor Victim-3), normalizing sexual topics, and arranging travel to facilitate sexual acts with Epstein. A footnote addresses the defense's anticipated argument regarding lack of knowledge or intent.
DOJ-OGR-00003116.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss, citing legal precedents (United States v. Young, Edwards v. Mazzuca) to establish that specific dates are not required in indictments regarding sexual abuse of minors due to memory limitations of victims. The text specifically highlights 'Minor Victim-1' who suffered abuse over multiple years, arguing that a timeframe is sufficient for the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00003104.jpg
This document is page 170 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents a legal argument supporting the joinder of perjury charges with substantive offenses, citing the precedent of *United States v. Ruiz* regarding a NY State Senator who lied to conceal a financial scheme. The prosecution argues that, like in *Ruiz*, the current defendant's perjury was part of a common scheme to conceal her role in the charged sexual offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00003099.jpg
This document is page 165 of a legal filing (Document 204) from April 2021 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to sever Counts Five and Six, stating that the perjury charges and sex abuse charges are logically connected by a common scheme. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and various case precedents to support the joinder of offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00003093.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed April 16, 2021) containing excerpts of a deposition. The defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) testifies that she was unaware of Jeffrey Epstein having sexual activities with anyone other than herself, a 'blond,' and a 'brunette' during the 1990s and 2000s. The document includes legal analysis arguing that the defendant's statement '[w]hen I was with him' referred strictly to moments of sexual acts rather than the duration of their relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00003090.jpg
This document is page 156 of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues that a jury should decide if the defendant lied, rejecting the defendant's claims that her answers were truthful. It introduces 'Count Six,' which charges the defendant with perjury related to a 'second deposition' that occurred in July 2016, though the specific transcripts of that deposition are redacted on this page.
DOJ-OGR-00003088.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing (Document 204) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes excerpts from Maxwell's deposition where she denies interacting with anyone under 18 at Epstein's properties, other than Virginia [Giuffre]. The filing argues against the defense's motion to dismiss perjury charges based on ambiguity, asserting that terms like 'Jeffrey,' 'properties,' and 'interact' were clear in context.
DOJ-OGR-00003087.jpg
A page from a deposition transcript (filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case) where the witness is questioned about recruiting underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. The witness denies finding 'girls' and insists their job was to find adult professionals (staff), though they acknowledge that Virginia Roberts was 17 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
This document is page 97 (filed page 124) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains legal arguments regarding the Fifth Amendment, citing case law to establish that the government is not required to inform a witness of the nature of an investigation or their status within it to avoid self-incrimination. The text also introduces the 'Act of Production Privilege' as a subset of Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00003055.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that certain evidence (depositions from April and July 2016) would have been 'inevitably discovered' regardless of protective order modifications. A significant footnote details Judge Preska's refusal in the related civil case to keep Maxwell's testimony sealed, specifically highlighting testimony where Maxwell denied giving massages to Jeffrey Epstein or 'Minor Victim-2,' which forms the basis of perjury charges (Count Six).
DOJ-OGR-00003049.jpg
This document is page 115 of a legal filing (Document 204) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines legal arguments regarding the 'good faith exception' to the exclusionary rule, citing precedents like United States v. Leon and United States v. Moore. The text argues that suppression of evidence is not warranted because the Government acted in good faith by obtaining a grand jury subpoena and applying to the court to modify a civil protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00003047.jpg
This document is page 113 of a legal filing by the Government in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The Government argues that Maxwell lacks standing to challenge the seizure of materials (specifically deposition transcripts) from the law firm Boies Schiller because she had no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in them and voluntarily participated in the deposition. Additionally, the Government asserts that even if she had standing, the evidence should not be suppressed because the Government acted in 'good faith' pursuant to a court order.
DOJ-OGR-00003013.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the Defendant failed to prove the Indictment was delayed for an improper purpose. The text discusses the legal standards for pre-indictment delay, citing Supreme Court and Circuit precedents, and rejects the Defendant's request for a 'balancing test' regarding prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00003006.jpg
A page from a court filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against Maxwell's motion claiming prejudice due to pre-indictment delay, specifically rejecting her assertion that the deaths of potential witnesses (Jeffrey Epstein, his mother, Michael Casey, and Detective Recarey) harmed her defense. The court/prosecution argues it is highly speculative to assume Epstein would have waived his Fifth Amendment rights to testify in Maxwell's favor and be found credible by a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Government's opposition) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecution argues that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay—specifically citing dead witnesses, lost Epstein employees, and corrupted memories—are insufficient to warrant dismissal based on established legal precedents. The document cites various case laws (Marion, Snyder, Iannelli, King) to support the position that fading memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in delays and do not automatically constitute actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that refutes a defendant's argument about the legislative intent of Section 3283. The author argues the defendant used a misleading, selective quote from Senator Patrick Leahy to claim Congress did not intend for an extended statute of limitations to apply retroactively. The document provides the full quotation to show that Congress removed the retroactivity provision due to constitutional concerns, not to limit the statute's application as the defendant suggests.
DOJ-OGR-00002990.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the prosecution is unfair due to the passage of time, citing the Retroactivity of Section 3283 and the 2003 Congressional amendment which extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. It references legal precedents from the Eighth and Ninth Circuits to support the validity of prosecuting sex crimes decades after they occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg
This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 16, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding the statute of limitations for sex crimes involving minors, specifically arguing that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 applies retroactively to crimes committed between 1994 and 1997. The text cites relevant case law (US v. Leo Sure Chief, US v. Jeffries) to support the position that the indictment is timely because the victims are still alive.
DOJ-OGR-00002980.jpg
This document is page 46 of a court filing (Document 204) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments refuting the defendant's claim that she has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites previous case law to argue that third-party standing principles from contract law do not necessarily apply to plea agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00002972.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the USAO-SDFL with Jeffrey Epstein did not bind other districts. It cites the November 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, noting that while USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria Villafaña consulted with DOJ Child Exploitation Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, this does not support the defendant's claim of a wider immunity promise.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity