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-00008808.jpg
This document is the second page of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 5, 2022. Judge Alison J. Nathan sets a specific briefing schedule for upcoming motions, establishing deadlines for the Defense motion, Government opposition, and Defense reply in February and March 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00008783.jpg
This document is page 77 of 83 from a court filing dated December 19, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines Jury Instruction No. 57, explaining 'Stipulations,' instructing the jury that they must accept agreed-upon facts as true and accept that stipulated witnesses would have given specific testimony, though the weight of that testimony remains for the jury to decide.
DOJ-OGR-00008780.jpg
This document is Page 74 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated December 19, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 54, titled 'Persons Not on Trial,' which explicitly instructs jurors not to speculate or draw inferences regarding why other individuals are not currently on trial alongside the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00008766.jpg
This document is page 60 of a court filing (Document 565) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' defining what an inference is and explaining the jury's role in drawing them from evidence. The instruction explicitly warns the jury that they cannot infer Ms. Maxwell's guilt solely based on her presence at a crime scene or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008745.jpg
This document is page 39 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) dated December 19, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains specific jury instructions defining the legal standards for 'aiding and abetting,' clarifying that mere presence at a crime scene or knowledge of a crime is insufficient for conviction; the defendant must have willfully sought to help the crime succeed.
DOJ-OGR-00008728.jpg
This document is page 22 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) dated December 19, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 15 regarding 'Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity,' specifically defining the 'First Element' and the legal definition of acting 'Knowingly.' It outlines the burden of proof on the government to establish that Maxwell persuaded or coerced individuals to travel in interstate commerce.
DOJ-OGR-00008725.jpg
This document is page 19 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 19, 2021. It contains Instruction No. 12 regarding 'Conspiracy and Substantive Counts,' explaining the legal distinction between agreeing to commit a crime (conspiracy) and actually committing the crime (substantive). The text outlines that the jury will be instructed on substantive Counts Two, Four, and Six before conspiracy Counts One, Three, and Five.
DOJ-OGR-00008722.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Instruction No. 10) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 19, 2021. It summarizes the specific counts in the indictment against her, detailing charges of conspiracy, enticing travel for illegal sexual acts, and sex trafficking of minors between 1994 and 2004. The text specifically names a victim 'Jane' in relation to charges occurring between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008720.jpg
This document is Page 14 of a court filing (Document 565) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 8: Reasonable Doubt' for the trial of Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text defines reasonable doubt for the jury, explaining that it is not sympathy or speculation, and instructs them on their duty to convict if guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, or to acquit if it is not.
DOJ-OGR-00008712.jpg
This document is page 6 (filed 12/19/21) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains 'Instruction No. 1: Role of the Court,' outlining the jury's obligation to accept the law as provided by the judge regardless of personal opinion or opposing statements by attorneys. The page includes a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00008711.jpg
This document is page 5 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 19, 2021. It serves as a Table of Contents listing Jury Instructions 49 through 59 and Concluding Remarks. Topics covered include the defendant's right not to testify, handling of witnesses, electronic communications, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008703.jpg
This document is a jury verdict form from a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines three specific counts for the jury's consideration: Count Four, transportation of a minor named Jane for illegal sexual activity; Count Five, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individuals under 18; and Count Six, sex trafficking of a minor named Carolyn. The form provides spaces for the jury to mark 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' for each count and for the foreperson to sign.
DOJ-OGR-00008665.jpg
This document represents page 127 (labeled 44 internally) of a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Instruction No. 34 regarding the objects of the conspiracy for Counts One, Three, and Five. Count One alleges conspiracy to entice minors (1994-2004), Count Three alleges conspiracy to transport minors (1994-2004), and Count Five begins to describe conspiracy to commit sex trafficking (2001-2004).
DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg
This document is page 126 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions explaining legal standards for proving a conspiracy, specifically regarding 'Count One, Three, and Five' of the indictment. The text instructs that circumstantial evidence ('actions speak louder than words') can be used to prove a mutual understanding between conspirators beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00005841.jpg
This document is page 58 of a legal filing (Document 397) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It details a legal dispute regarding discovery, specifically the defendant's repeated requests for the Government to identify uncharged co-conspirators and their statements. The text outlines a history of motions (Dkt. Nos. 293, 297, 317, 320, 331) where the defense sought this information and the Government's opposition to identifying specific co-conspirator statements within their production.
DOJ-OGR-00031025.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a personal survey or 'slambook' style questionnaire, possibly printed from a social media profile or instant messaging platform. It lists personal questions regarding preferences (e.g., Pepsi vs Coke), habits, and future goals (college, marriage). The document was processed on July 26, 2017, as part of a Public Records Request (17-295) by the DOJ. Crucially, all answers to the questions have been redacted, concealing the identity of the respondent.
DOJ-OGR-00031012.jpg
This document is a printout of a MySpace profile page for user 'iloveanirishboi', dated April 4, 2006. The profile belongs to a high school-aged female who identifies as a twin of mixed Cuban/French/Irish heritage and mentions connections to friends in Ohio and Georgia. The document includes DOJ markings (DOJ-OGR-00031012) indicating it was part of a federal investigation file released via public records request.
DOJ-OGR-00031010.jpg
This document is a printout of a MySpace profile page for a 17-year-old female located in Lox, Florida. The profile was last logged into on March 5, 2006. Notable content includes the statement "*i already met him *" under the "Who I'd like to meet" section, and a mention of being kicked off a previous profile. The document is part of a Department of Justice public records release (DOJ-OGR-00031010).
DOJ-OGR-00025421.jpg
This document is an internal Bureau of Prisons email chain dated August 12, 2019, two days after Jeffrey Epstein's death. Michael Carvajal thanks Sonya Thompson for information regarding a request to 'reconstruct 292 data' for Inmate Epstein (ID 76318-054). The term '292 data' likely refers to specific inmate monitoring or phone logs within the prison system.
DOJ-OGR-00025412.jpg
This is a Suicide Watch Observation Log for inmate Epstein, Reg #76318-054, on July 24, 2019. The log details observations from 6:30 AM to 8:45 AM, during which Epstein slept, received and ate breakfast, requested medication and a shower. At 8:30 AM, he was interviewed by psychology staff, and at 8:45 AM, he was removed from suicide watch and placed on psychological observation.
DOJ-OGR-00020354.jpg
This is page 2 of a court filing by the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The document addresses the Court's inquiries regarding the defendant's housing conditions at the MDC. It explains that she is housed alone due to safety concerns ('high-profile case', 'nature of charges') and her own expressed fears of the general population. It also states that the MDC cannot provide her with an eye mask because they are considered contraband, though she may use other non-contraband items to cover her eyes.
DOJ-OGR-00020350.jpg
This is a formal order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated April 27, 2021. The court affirmed previous District Court orders denying bail for Ghislaine Maxwell and denied her motion for temporary pretrial release. The document also notes that Maxwell's counsel raised concerns about sleep deprivation during incarceration, but the appellate court directed those specific concerns back to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017476.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Visoski (likely a pilot) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony focuses on logistics, confirming that the helicopter crew stayed in hotels on St. Thomas rather than on Little St. James. It also establishes the timeline of Epstein's purchase of Little St. James in the late 1990s and confirms that significant construction and building additions occurred after the purchase.
DOJ-OGR-00017443.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) of a pilot named Visoski. The testimony focuses on flight manifest procedures, specifically the requirement to list names if known and the lack of necessity to weigh passengers for the specific large aircraft (Gulf Stream and Boeing) flown for Epstein, as opposed to smaller planes.
DOJ-OGR-00011659.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that under New Mexico law, the sexual activity in question was not illegal because it lacked force or coercion, and requests that jury instructions reflect this distinction. The Court agrees to consider how best to clarify this for the jury.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity