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-00005871.jpg
This document is page 4 of an exhibit filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains an excerpt from an academic or clinical paper titled 'Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse,' discussing the difficulties in scientifically and legally defining 'grooming.' The text argues for a clearer conceptual definition to improve forensic and clinical application, citing philosopher Larry Laudan and researcher O'Donohue.
DOJ-OGR-00005869.jpg
This document is page 2 of an exhibit filed on October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains the first page of an academic article titled 'The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues' published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse in 2014. The text defines grooming as a 'seduction stage' used to gain access to victims and discusses the need for a scientific definition of the term. It bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005869).
DOJ-OGR-00005850.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 397) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the admissibility of witness identification testimony, citing precedents such as *Neil v. Biggers* and *United States v. Simmons* to argue that even suggestive identification procedures do not require suppression if the identification is independently reliable based on the totality of circumstances. The page bears a Department of Justice footer stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005850).
DOJ-OGR-00005847.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing (dated Oct 29, 2021) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government rebuts defense accusations regarding discovery violations, stating they provided co-conspirator statements 'unusually early' (seven weeks before trial). Additionally, the Government argues against suppressing the identification of the defendant by 'Minor Victim-4,' asserting that the victim knew the defendant personally for decades.
DOJ-OGR-00005786.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page 2 of the brief, page 3 of the PDF) for a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines legal arguments by the Government opposing Defense motions, specifically concerning the identification of the defendant by 'Minor Victim-4', the admission of government exhibits, and the use of the terms 'Victims' and 'Rape' during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005785.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 397) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The filing argues for the admissibility of testimony from expert witness Dr. Lisa Rocchio regarding abuse dynamics and from 'Minor Victim-3.' It also argues for the admission of evidence from an October 11, 2021 Government letter and co-conspirator statements at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005778.jpg
This document is a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated October 29, 2021, in which the defense objects to specific government exhibits. The defense argues that photographs (Exhibits 251 and 288, description redacted) and a box containing 'Twin Torpedos' (Exhibit 294) seized from Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005 are irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 391) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, dated October 29, 2021. The defense argues that admitting seized evidence based on the affidavit of Detective Recarey violates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights because Recarey (the original custodian) is dead and unavailable for cross-examination. The text emphasizes that no other witness has sufficient personal knowledge of the seized items, their storage, or the 'confusing' handwritten notes in the inventory.
DOJ-OGR-00005723.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on October 29, 2021 (certifying action on October 18, 2021) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Nicole Simmons certifies that she electronically filed a Motion in Limine to exclude 'Government Exhibit 52' and served notice to the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) prosecutors, including Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00002859.jpg
This is page 17 of a court filing (Indictment) filed on March 29, 2021, detailing 'Count Five: Sex Trafficking Conspiracy' against Ghislaine Maxwell. It alleges that between 2001 and 2004, Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, entice, and transport minors for sex trafficking. It specifically mentions Maxwell arranging the transport of 'Minor Victim-1' from Florida to New York for sexual acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002854.jpg
This page from a legal filing outlines conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein involving the enticement of minors for sexual activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. It specifically details 'Overt Acts' committed between 1994 and 1997 involving a 'Minor Victim-1' in New York and Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00002853.jpg
This document is page 11 of a criminal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in March 2021. It details allegations that between 2001 and 2004, Maxwell and Epstein groomed 'Minor Victim-4' by sending gifts (including lingerie) and encouraged her to recruit other underage girls for sexualized massages at the Palm Beach residence in exchange for cash. Additionally, it alleges that in 2016, Maxwell committed perjury during a civil deposition regarding her role in these abuses.
DOJ-OGR-00002844.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (likely an indictment) filed on March 29, 2021, detailing the factual background of charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein (1994-1997), her role as his paid property manager (1994-2004), and her specific methods of grooming minor victims by feigning friendship and asking about their personal lives. It also alleges she committed perjury in 2016 regarding these activities.
DOJ-OGR-00002825.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated March 26, 2021, likely relating to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the timeline and context of jury selection in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It outlines the procedural mechanics of the 'Jury Plan,' detailing how master jury wheels are constructed from voter registration lists in specific NY counties (Manhattan, Bronx, Westchester, etc.) to ensure proportionate representation. A footnote clarifies qualification criteria for jurors, including English proficiency, citizenship, and exemptions for hardship or occupation.
DOJ-OGR-00002811.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal filing (Document 182-4) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a standard admonition regarding attorney conduct under Local Rules and provides a signature block for the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00002809.jpg
A Certificate of Good Standing from the District of Columbia Bar certifying that attorney Sigrid S. McCawley has been a member since June 2, 2000, and remains active as of March 24, 2021. The document was filed on March 26, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely to support McCawley's legal standing in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002759.jpg
A legal cover letter dated March 15, 2021, from attorneys Cohen and Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter lists ten reply memoranda being filed on behalf of their client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. These filings relate to motions to dismiss indictments, suppress evidence (involving a redacted subpoena target), sever counts, and request a bill of particulars.
DOJ-OGR-00002733.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated February 23, 2021, representing Ghislaine Maxwell's introduction to her Third Motion for Release on Bail. In an effort to secure bail, Maxwell proposes two new restrictive conditions: renouncing her French and British citizenships to prevent flight to those countries, and consolidating her and her spouse's assets into a monitored account overseen by a retired federal judge or former US Attorney. She emphasizes her 30-year residency in the US and her desire to prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002713.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 148) from February 4, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines a legal argument based on the 'Turkish factors' to justify the defense's request for early disclosure of the government's witness list. The defense argues that Maxwell has no criminal history, is not a danger to the community, and that the complexity of the case combined with the global pandemic necessitates this disclosure for fair preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 148) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. The text constitutes 'Section V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements,' where the defense argues they need early access to Jencks Act material to prepare for trial. They cite the age of the allegations (25 years), the lack of electronic records from that era, the location of witnesses in foreign countries, and the logistical difficulties posed by the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the request.
DOJ-OGR-00002709.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Document 148) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It contains legal arguments by the defense requesting the immediate disclosure of 'Brady' and 'Giglio' material (exculpatory and impeachment evidence) from the government. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell needs this information early to prepare an effective defense, citing various legal precedents (United States v. Rodriguez, Bagley, etc.) to support the claim that impeachment evidence falls under the Brady rule.
DOJ-OGR-00033034.jpg
This is page 46 of a deposition transcript involving an unnamed witness, questioned by Mr. Tein and defended by Mr. Leopold. The witness confirms that attorney Jeffrey Herman was the lawyer who first sued Jeffrey Epstein on their behalf. The questioning turns to whether Herman advanced the witness's family any money, at which point Mr. Leopold objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00033006.jpg
This document is page 18 of a deposition transcript processed on July 26, 2017. A witness is being questioned about a specific message sent via MySpace to a friend. The message discusses having 'court shit on the 20th' and asks the recipient if they 'still have court shit with him,' implying a shared legal struggle involving a male figure. The witness confirms sending the message to a friend but claims to have deleted the MySpace account and cannot recall the specific date.
DOJ-OGR-00032992.jpg
This document is page 4 of a deposition transcript recorded by Consor & Associates in Florida. It captures the swearing-in of a witness whose name is heavily redacted and the commencement of direct examination by an attorney named Mr. Tein. The footer indicates the document was part of a Public Records Request processed on July 26, 2017, and bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00032961.jpg
This document contains a photocopy of a 'Certified Food Service Manager' identification card issued by Montgomery County, Maryland, to Janusz Banasiak, expiring in November 2005. Handwritten notes above the ID reference 'AT&T Wireless Services, Inc,' a potential date '04-31-05' (though April 31st does not exist), and numbers '801-3590'. The document is stamped with DOJ FOIA release information from 2017.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity