Department of Justice (DOJ)
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Congress
|
Unknown |
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-00005565.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 29, 2021. It contains a section header for 'Minor Victim-3', but the substantive content describing this individual or events related to them is entirely redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005563.jpg
This document is page 9 of a 40-page court filing (Document 383) from October 29, 2021, associated with case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The content of the page is completely redacted, showing only the header, page number 8, and the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00005563'.
DOJ-OGR-00005562.jpg
This is page 8 of a legal document (Document 383) filed on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document argues for the privacy rights of minor victims, dismissing the defense's arguments about case publicity as irrelevant. A specific section concerning 'Minor Victim-1' is introduced but is entirely redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005555.jpg
This document is the cover page for a 'Reply Memorandum of Law' filed on October 29, 2021, by the United States Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 Cr. 330). The filing is in further support of the government's motions in limine and lists Damian Williams as the U.S. Attorney along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Moe, Pomerantz, and Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00005543.jpg
This document is the signature page of an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. It certifies that Epstein understands the clarifications to the agreement. The document is signed by Lilly Ann Sanchez (Epstein's attorney) on October 29, 2007, and by a representative (FAUSA) for Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana on October 30, 2007, under the authority of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. The signatures for Jeffrey Epstein and Gerald Lefcourt are blank on this copy.
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 380) from October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text is a legal argument citing multiple precedents (Boyle, Rodriguez, Hill, Watts, Carneglia) to support the exclusion of evidence related to the government's charging decisions. The argument asserts that such evidence is hearsay, irrelevant, and potentially confusing to jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00005410.jpg
This document is page 17 of 54 from a court filing (Document 380) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the sealing of exhibits containing the names or last names of specific minor victims (Minor Victim-1, 3, 4, 6) and Witness-1 to prevent harassment and protect privacy, citing various legal precedents. A footnote also argues that courtroom sketch artists should be precluded from drawing the faces of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00005388.jpg
This is the second and final page of a legal document (Document 376) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 27, 2021. The document was signed in New York, New York by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. A Bates number in the footer suggests it is part of a Department of Justice document production.
DOJ-OGR-00005385.jpg
A legal letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the government's request to finalize jury selection on November 19, preferring November 29 to account for potential COVID-19 exposure and biases arising during the Thanksgiving holiday break. The document highlights procedural disagreements between the defense and the government regarding trial scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00005384.jpg
This is the second page of a two-page court document filed on October 26, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page contains no body text, only the court header, a page number '2', and a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00005383.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated October 26, 2021, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense accepts the Court's draft preliminary remarks for jurors but strongly objects to the government's request to delay providing the names of prospective jurors until the start of oral voir dire on November 16, 2021. Sternheim argues that the Court previously determined names would be provided with questionnaires and requests the Court deny the government's attempt to delay disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00005378.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated October 25, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Pagliuca informs the court that the defense has filed an Omnibus Response to the Government's Motions in Limine under seal to allow time to review for necessary redactions, with a public filing and justification letter to follow by October 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00005362.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing (Document 367-1) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 22, 2021. It appears to be a script for jury selection (voir dire), outlining the specific charges in the indictment against Maxwell, including conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors and sex trafficking between 1994 and 2004. The text details the first four counts of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00005361.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a court filing (Document 367-1) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It outlines proposed 'Voir Dire' (jury selection) questions focused on determining if potential jurors have been biased by pretrial publicity regarding Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes sidebar annotations showing a legal dispute where the Government objects to specific questions as repetitive or inappropriate, while the Defense argues they are necessary to ensure an impartial jury, citing case law such as *United States v. Tsarnaev*.
DOJ-OGR-00005353.jpg
This document is page 31 of 35 from a court filing (Document 367) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 22, 2021. It is a blank Declaration form for a Jury Questionnaire, requiring a juror to verify their answers under penalty of perjury and confirm they received no assistance. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00005353.
DOJ-OGR-00005330.jpg
This document is Page 8 of 35 from a court filing (Document 367) dated October 22, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a blank jury questionnaire asking potential jurors about scheduling conflicts, English proficiency, medical conditions, and medication use that might affect their ability to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00005304.jpg
This document is page 28 of 40 from a court filing (Document 365) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 22, 2021. It is a blank declaration page for a Jury Questionnaire requiring a juror to attest to the truthfulness of their answers under penalty of perjury without revealing their name, instructing them to sign only with their Juror Number in November 2021. The document bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00005294.jpg
This document is page 18 (marked -17- at the bottom) of a juror questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The page focuses on establishing whether potential jurors have personal relationships or dealings with key figures in the case, including the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and the prosecuting U.S. Attorneys (Damian Williams, Audrey Strauss, Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach).
DOJ-OGR-00002678.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a court filing dated February 4, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists legal precedents (cases), statutes, and rules relied upon in the main document. Key statutes cited include 18 U.S.C. § 2421, 2422, and 2423, which relate to the transportation of individuals for illegal sexual activity (Mann Act) and sexual exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00002670.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 144) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It presents a legal argument regarding the Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283). The text argues that Counts One and Two (under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)) do not specifically require the victim to be a child or involve physical abuse/kidnapping, and therefore should not be subject to the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00002666.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 144) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It argues that 18 U.S.C. Section 3283 (extending statutes of limitations for child abuse offenses) does not apply to Maxwell's charges (Counts One through Four) regarding conduct in the 1990s. The text cites Supreme Court precedents (Shular v. United States, Bridges v. United States) to argue that statutory extensions only apply when the specific conduct (e.g., abuse or fraud) is an 'essential ingredient' of the charged offense.
DOJ-OGR-00002620.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement. It contains a certification that Epstein understands the conditions of the agreement. The page is signed and dated September 24, 2007, by Gerald Lefcourt, Esq., counsel to Jeffrey Epstein. Other signature lines for R. Alexander Acosta, A. Marie Villafaña, Jeffrey Epstein, and Lilly Ann Sanchez are present but blank on this specific copy.
DOJ-OGR-00031173.jpg
This document is a printed page from the MySpace profile of user 'dixiedelight5', dated February 9, 2006, released via a DOJ FOIA request. It contains comments from three individuals (Danielle, Sarah, and John) posted on January 22 and 23, 2006, discussing social plans, 'partying hardy', and exchanging contact information including a partial phone number (282-7562). The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00031173.
DOJ-OGR-00031172.jpg
This document contains a printed log of MySpace comments received by user 'dixiedelight5' between January 23 and January 24, 2006. The comments discuss personal relationships, a job opportunity at a place called 'Reds', and travel to Ohio. One profile picture is redacted, and the document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00031172).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity