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-00002960.jpg
This document is page 26 of 239 from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing legal precedents (case law starting with W and Z) and a comprehensive list of Federal Statutes (18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C.) referenced in the filing. The statutes cited include laws regarding sex trafficking (§ 1591), coercion/enticement (§ 2422), transportation of minors (§ 2423), and child victims' rights (§ 3509), which are central charges in the Maxwell/Epstein proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002953.jpg
This document is page 19 of 239 from Document 204 filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It is a Table of Authorities page (numbered xviii) listing legal precedents cited in the filing, specifically cases beginning with 'United States v.' followed by names starting with M through N. It contains standard legal citations and page references for the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002944.jpg
This document is page 10 (labeled 'ix') of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 16, 2021, in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists legal precedents beginning with 'S' through 'U', including citations for *United States v. Nader* (marked 'passim', meaning cited frequently) and various Second Circuit decisions. The footer indicates this document was processed by the DOJ Office of Government Relations.
DOJ-OGR-00032530.jpg
This document is a scanned page from a spiral-bound message book containing four quadrants. It records three phone messages from April 30 and May 6, 2005. Notable messages include Jeffrey Epstein calling 'G.M' (likely Ghislaine Maxwell) and a woman named Shawna calling Epstein stating she 'Wants to work if you are in.' One caller's name is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00032506.jpg
This document contains a page from a spiral-bound message book with four phone messages directed to J.E. (Jeffrey Epstein) between January 16 and January 20, 2005. Notable callers include magician David Copperfield, who stated he had 'some info,' and retail billionaire Leslie Wexner, who called from Georgia and did not leave a number, implying a close relationship where the number was known. Other callers include Manuela and Maria, with phone numbers associated with New York (212) and Palm Beach (561) area codes respectively.
DOJ-OGR-00032495.jpg
This document contains a page of four handwritten phone message slips addressed to 'Mr. J.E.' and 'Jeffrey' (Epstein) dating from December 13-16, 2004. Notable content includes a message from Sarah asking if 'Ms. G's father's papers' (likely referring to Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell) should be moved from Palm Beach (PB) to New York (NY). Other messages include a redacted caller and calls from individuals named Helly and Dragana with 561 area code (Palm Beach County) phone numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00032401.jpg
This document contains four handwritten phone message slips addressed to Jeffrey Epstein (or 'JE'). Callers include Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah (last name redacted), Sophie Biddle, and Manuela. The messages concern scheduling meetings, including a specific 7:30 appointment with Sophie Biddle and a relay message from Manuela apologizing that Sophie missed Epstein in California.
DOJ-OGR-00004907.jpg
This document is a page from a sealed court transcript filed on July 2, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript captures a dialogue between the Court and attorney Mr. Rossmiller regarding the definition of confidential materials involving plaintiff Virginia Roberts and a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. The discussion focuses on privilege, privacy interests, and a proposed order submitted to Judge Sweet.
DOJ-OGR-00004883.jpg
This document is Page 71 of 80 from a filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The content is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion overturning Bill Cosby's conviction ([J-100-2020]), discussing the legal principle of 'reasonable reliance' on a prosecutor's public promise not to prosecute. This precedent was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue for the validity of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00004866.jpg
This document is page 54 of a legal filing (Exhibit 310-1) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 2, 2021. The text contains legal arguments citing precedents such as *Santobello v. New York* and *Commonwealth v. Zuber* regarding the binding nature of prosecutorial promises and plea agreements under due process principles. It serves as a supporting legal authority, likely arguing that the government must honor previous non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004863.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. It contains an excerpt from a judicial opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, specifically discussing former D.A. Bruce Castor's testimony and emails asserting his intent to permanently bind the Commonwealth from prosecuting Bill Cosby for a 2004 incident to remove his Fifth Amendment protections in civil court. This case law was likely cited in the Maxwell trial regarding the validity of non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004861.jpg
This document is Page 49 of a larger filing (Document 310-1) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing the legal effect of D.A. Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. It serves as legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and whether a prosecutor's promise not to charge a defendant is binding and prevents future prosecution. This case law was cited in the Maxwell trial because Maxwell's defense argued that Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida should shield her from federal prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00004838.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely submitted as case law or precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs). The text details testimony from the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby), focusing on whether a valid non-prosecution agreement existed between District Attorney Castor and Cosby. Witnesses testify that no such promise was mentioned during civil depositions or settlement negotiations, contradicting claims of an 'irrevocable commitment' not to prosecute.
DOJ-OGR-00004833.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a court filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), but the text specifically details the 2005 investigation into Bill Cosby regarding Ms. Constand. It summarizes Prosecutor Bruce Castor's rationale for declining to prosecute Cosby at that time, citing insufficient evidence, credibility issues with the accuser, and the existence of phone records and wire interceptions. The document is likely included in the Maxwell docket as a legal exhibit or precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004811.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 2, 2021. The defense argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment should be dismissed by citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to vacate Bill Cosby's conviction due to a violation of a non-prosecution promise. The defense asserts that the government is similarly reneging on a formal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Maxwell from over 25 years prior, violating fundamental fairness and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00004781.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 2 of 2) of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The order was signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan in New York, New York. The document contains a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00004781.
DOJ-OGR-00004761.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on June 15, 2021. It contains a first-person account of inhumane conditions at a detention facility, including a 14-day lockdown in February 2020 where inmates were denied sanitary products and showers, and a 'feces flood' incident where inmates were forced to clean raw sewage with their hands. The speaker also describes a 10-day lockdown following the death of George Floyd.
DOJ-OGR-00004734.jpg
A legal letter dated May 28, 2021, from attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter informs the court that the defense is filing an Omnibus Reply Memorandum under seal because it contains confidential discovery information governed by a protective order, allowing the government time to propose redactions before public filing.
DOJ-OGR-00004724.jpg
This document is page 17 of a Government filing (Document 295) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on May 25, 2021. The text argues that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the S2 Indictment based on improper pre-trial delay should be denied, citing that the Court has already rejected similar arguments and that the defendant failed to prove actual prejudice or intentional delay by the Government. It references case law standards for due process violations regarding pre-indictment delays.
DOJ-OGR-00004670.jpg
This document is a page from a confidential Grand Jury testimony transcript filed in May 2021. It details a witness explaining a 'Revised Indictment Summary Chart' to the jury, specifically discussing a cross-reference list that maps 'new Jane Doe numbers' to previous identification numbers. The specific identities or numbers of the victims discussed are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00004668.jpg
This document is a page from a confidential grand jury testimony transcript, filed on May 25, 2021. The witness details the issuance of multiple subpoenas to various companies, including Bear Sterns and Wolf Camera, to gather evidence such as ticketing records, personnel files, and financial transaction data. The testimony indicates that while some subpoenas successfully yielded records, others resulted in responses indicating no records were found.
DOJ-OGR-00004661.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It certifies that Epstein understands the clarifications to the NPA. The document is signed by Lilly Ann Sanchez (Epstein's attorney) on October 29, 2007, and by a First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA) on behalf of A. Marie Villafaña on October 30, 2007; Epstein's and Gerald Lefcourt's signature lines are present but blank.
DOJ-OGR-00004655.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It features Jeffrey Epstein's signature dated September 24, 2007, acknowledging he understands the conditions of the agreement. The document lists R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney) and Epstein's defense counsel, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, though they have not signed this specific copy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity