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-00025219.jpg
This document provides a biographical and legal summary of Jeffrey Epstein, detailing his early dismissal from teaching and Bear Stearns, and his subsequent financial rise involving the alleged misappropriation of over $46 million from a redacted client/mentor. It outlines his criminal history, including his 2008 conviction in Florida and the 2019 federal sex trafficking charges that led to his detention without bail shortly before his death.
DOJ-OGR-00025188.jpg
This document is a printout of an internal email sent on July 23, 2019, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The subject line identifies him by name and inmate number (#76318-054) and explicitly flags 'Suicide Watch.' The content of the message and the identities of the sender and recipient are completely redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00025165.jpg
This document contains an email exchange from July 26, 2019, between Jeffrey Epstein's attorney and a prison official regarding approval for Epstein (inmate 76318-054) to receive a CPAP machine. The official confirms approval but specifies the device must be delivered to medical staff rather than directly to the inmate.
DOJ-OGR-00020122.jpg
This document is a legal opinion filed in December 2020 (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case), authored by French lawyer William Julié. It argues that French law does not absolutely prohibit the extradition of its nationals to the US, citing the 'Peterson case' and a 2010 EU-US agreement. The document specifically references Ghislaine Maxwell, concluding it is unlikely France would refuse to extradite her, and quotes a past letter from Senators Durbin and Obama supporting discretionary extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00020117.jpg
This document is page 14 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that flight risk concerns regarding the UK and France are overstated and that the recent arrest of associate Jean-Luc Brunel in France diminishes her incentive to flee there. Additionally, the motion highlights a COVID-19 surge at the MDC (113 cases) and restrictive prison conditions, including mouth inspections and potential suspension of legal calls, as further justification for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020106.jpg
This page is the third page of a legal filing (Document 123) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 23, 2020. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing two legal precedents: United States v. Chen (1992) and United States v. Orta (1985). The document bears a DOJ-OGR footer.
DOJ-OGR-00020102.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum signed by Philippe Jaeglé of the French Office for the International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It explicitly clarifies that under the 1996 Bilateral Extradition Treaty and French law, France 'systematically refuses' to extradite its own nationals to the United States, noting this is a principle deviated from only within the European Union. This document is significant in the context of the Epstein case as it outlines the legal barrier that prevented the US from extraditing French associates like Jean-Luc Brunel.
DOJ-OGR-00020101.jpg
This letter from the French Ministry of Justice, dated December 11, 2020, is addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice. It explains that French law strictly prohibits the extradition of individuals who were French nationals at the time of the alleged crime, including those with dual nationality. The letter contrasts this with the legal systems of Anglo-Saxon countries like the United States and states that when France refuses extradition on grounds of nationality, it applies the principle of 'aut tradere, aut judicar' (either extradite or prosecute).
DOJ-OGR-00020071.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Government's opposition to a renewed bail application) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that the defense's new application reiterates previously rejected arguments regarding flight risk and ties to the US. It emphasizes that the nature of the charges, involving the sexual abuse of multiple minor victims, supports continued detention.
DOJ-OGR-00020070.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal brief filed by the Department of Justice, seemingly in relation to a detention hearing. The text argues that defendants charged with sex trafficking of minors (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423) face a presumption of detention because no conditions can assure their appearance or community safety. It cites various legal precedents (English, Mercedes, Petrov) to support the Government's position that the burden is on the defendant to rebut this presumption, and discusses the standards for reopening a detention hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00020060.jpg
This document is the cover page for Exhibit F, a legal filing from April 1, 2021, in Case 21-58. It is the Government's Memorandum in Support of the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Release, indicating the prosecution is not opposing the defendant's request to be released from custody.
DOJ-OGR-00020055.jpg
This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 102) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense asserts she is not a flight risk and argues that her current detention at the MDC constitutes 'de facto solitary confinement' under conditions rivaling a Supermax prison, which impairs her ability to prepare her defense. The text cites United States v. Orta regarding bail standards and claims wardens have noted the unprecedented nature of her restrictive regime.
DOJ-OGR-00020045.jpg
This document is page 25 of a defense filing arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell was not evading arrest but rather avoiding the press, evidenced by the government's ability to easily track her phone. It further argues she is not a flight risk to the UK or France, noting she waived extradition rights and remained in the US following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00017401.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a pilot named Visoski by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding his employment flying Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft (specifically a Boeing 727 and a G2B) between 2001 and 2004. The page also records the admission of Government Exhibits 301 and 302, which are photos of the Boeing 727, into evidence without objection from the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017382.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Visoski by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on identifying exterior photos of the main house at Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch (Exhibits 323 and 706) and describing the interior layout of the residence, specifically noting it is a square house with a central open courtyard.
DOJ-OGR-00005652.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 386-1) is a formal request from the United States Attorney's Office (Audrey Strauss, signed by Assistants including Maurene Comey and Alison Moe) to the defense. The Government reiterates a request originally made on August 5, 2020, for reciprocal discovery regarding evidence the defendant intends to use at trial and prior statements of defense witnesses (referring to the defendant as 'she'). The document cites Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b) and 26.2.
DOJ-OGR-00005651.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Government (prosecution) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), providing notice of expert testimony by Dr. Rocchio. The filing outlines that Dr. Rocchio will testify generally about the psychology of trauma, sexual abuse, grooming tactics, and delayed disclosure by victims, explicitly stating she has not evaluated any specific victims in this case. Additionally, the Government requests reciprocal discovery regarding any expert witnesses the defense intends to call.
DOJ-OGR-00005636.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on October 29, 2021. It is a legal argument seeking to exclude the testimony of an expert witness named Rocchio, arguing that her opinions on 'grooming' and sexual abuse are based on unverified personal beliefs rather than scientific methodology or representative studies. The text cites various legal precedents (including Supreme Court rulings) to support the claim that Rocchio's testimony is unreliable and 'virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination.'
DOJ-OGR-00005634.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Document 386) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a defense argument seeking to exclude the testimony of an expert witness named Rocchio regarding 'grooming' patterns in sexual abuse cases. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 704, 403, and 404 to argue that such opinions are unreliable, prejudicial, and not based on scientific data.
DOJ-OGR-00005627.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 386) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a Table of Authorities listing legal precedents, specifically focusing on case law regarding the admissibility of expert testimony (e.g., Daubert, Kumho Tire, Joiner). The document bears a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00005627).
DOJ-OGR-00005615.jpg
This document is a page from a defense filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated October 29, 2021. It argues that the Government's disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence was insufficient and late, citing a letter served on October 11, 2021. The filing highlights discrepancies between the 404(b) letter and the trial exhibits provided the same day, specifically noting post-conspiracy evidence such as flight logs (2005-13), Amazon shipments (2013), and financial statements (2007) that were not justified in the letter.
DOJ-OGR-00005613.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Motion in Limine) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the Government should be precluded from introducing certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the prosecution failed to provide particularized notice and reasoning as required by the December 2020 amendments to the rule. The text outlines the specific requirements of the amended rule regarding notice in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00005596.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 384) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The filing outlines the Defense's arguments that the Government failed to identify co-conspirator statements and overwhelmed the defense with document dumps, violating court orders. The Defense argues this hinders cross-examination and requests the preclusion of these purported statements as a remedy.
DOJ-OGR-00005573.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the court's ruling on the anonymity of 'Minor Victim-4' during trial. The court rejects the defense's argument that using the victim's real name is necessary for impeachment or to address allegations of suborning perjury. The ruling allows the defense to use the victim's first name and show unredacted exhibits to the jury, but prohibits saying the victim's last name out loud in court.
DOJ-OGR-00005571.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government is arguing for the protection of 'Minor Victims' by allowing them to testify under pseudonyms. The Government asserts that this protection is necessary to prevent their identities from being exposed by news outlets, which would cause significant harm, and that the Defendant's need for witness information does not outweigh this need for protection. The document cites the Second Circuit's definition of a defendant's interests in witness disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity