DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
This document is page 135 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the current case is distinguishable from past precedents regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of false evidence. The text asserts that the defendant has not been deprived of a fair trial and notes that a jury will determine if her statements during April and July 2016 depositions were perjurious.
DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
This document is page 133 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It presents legal arguments and case law precedents regarding government misconduct, specifically the high burden required to prove 'outrageous' government conduct that would warrant dismissal of an indictment. The text argues that relief is only appropriate if the misconduct prejudiced the defense, and that suppression of evidence is the standard remedy rather than dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00003060.jpg
This document is page 126 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal arguments regarding the 'state action' doctrine and the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing whether a private entity acts as a government agent. The document explicitly argues that the law firm Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and that the defendant's claim fails for lack of demonstrated state action.
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
This legal document, page 125 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, discusses the application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the act of producing documents. It cites several legal precedents to argue that the privilege only applies when the act of production itself is testimonial and incriminating, not merely because the documents' contents are incriminating. The document further asserts that the Fifth Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individuals from governmental coercion, not from other moral or psychological pressures.
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, that discusses the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. It cites numerous federal court cases, including from the Supreme Court, to argue that suppressing evidence is a 'last resort' intended to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. The text emphasizes the 'good-faith' exception, particularly when law enforcement acts in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, suggesting that suppression is generally not warranted in such cases.
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
This document is page 106 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text details the Government's argument that it did not circumvent the 'Martindell' legal standard when seeking evidence previously under protective orders, specifically referring to a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. It notes that Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled that the Government had demonstrated 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the release of testimony to the grand jury despite previous protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in which the prosecution (Government) argues against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss her indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The Government cites several legal precedents (Pierre-Louis, Burke, Carbonaro) to argue that the defendant has failed to show the delay was improper or for a tactical advantage. The document also addresses Maxwell's specific claim that the Government delayed the indictment to benefit from a separate civil litigation involving Giuffre, a claim the Government refutes.
DOJ-OGR-00003014.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the dismissal of an indictment due to pre-indictment delay, citing numerous Second Circuit precedents (such as Cornielle, Alameh, and Delacruz) to establish that a defendant must prove the Government intentionally delayed specifically to gain a 'tactical advantage.'
DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing by the prosecution (The Government) arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that the defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution is speculative, as her assertions about diminished witness memories and lost access to her own emails, phone, and travel records from 1994-1997 lack proof of their helpfulness or materiality. The document cites legal precedents (Harrison and Dornau) to support the position that such speculative claims are insufficient grounds for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00003001.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text contains legal arguments regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3283, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or 'fact-based approach' applies to defining offenses involving sexual abuse. The prosecution argues that the defendant's interpretation would contradict Congress's intent to broadly prosecute crimes against children.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
This page is from a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The text asserts that the Ex Post Facto Clause is not violated because the limitations period had not expired for Counts One through Four when it was extended in 2003. Footnotes address the specific ages of Minor Victims 1, 2, and 3 in relation to the 2003 extension and discuss the 'Landgraf' Supreme Court precedent regarding legislative retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
This document is page 23 of a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing against her motions to dismiss. The prosecution asserts that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida does not apply to the current indictment or district, and denies her request for discovery due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the document argues that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 because the statute allows prosecution for child sexual abuse offenses as long as the victims are alive, rejecting Maxwell's argument that the statute applies only prospectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as affidavits, to establish a genuine factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The filing contrasts the current defendant's lack of evidence with several precedent cases (Aleman, Sattar, Feldman) where hearings were granted because defendants submitted supporting affidavits or made uncontested assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00002977.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida cannot logically grant Maxwell immunity for future crimes (specifically perjury) committed a decade later, nor grant her broader immunity than Epstein himself received. A footnote clarifies the scope of the original Florida investigation, noting that while Minor Victim-2 was interviewed then, Minor Victims 1 and 3 were not interviewed and did not speak to law enforcement until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00002969.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court filing (Document 204) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and did not provide national immunity for co-conspirators. It contends that the defendant's interpretation—that Epstein secured broader immunity for co-conspirators than himself—is counterintuitive and unsupported by the text.
DOJ-OGR-00002955.jpg
This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00002937.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents (page ii) for a legal filing by the Department of Justice in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines arguments against the defendant's motions to suppress evidence, asserting that Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims fail and that the government acted in good faith. The document also outlines a section arguing that a jury should decide whether Maxwell committed perjury, specifically referencing depositions from April and July 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00032538.jpg
This document contains four handwritten phone message slips addressed to Jeffrey Epstein between April 10 and April 12, 2005. Messages include communications from 'Cecilia' relaying that 'Mr. Newman' and 'Jean Luc' were on the phone, a call from 'Harry from the office', and a redacted caller requesting a return call. The document appears to be part of a larger file released via a Public Records Request.
DOJ-OGR-00032523.jpg
The document contains four phone message slips from a spiral-bound book dated between March 31 and April 1, 2005, addressed to Jeffrey Epstein (J.E.). Key messages include a report from Ghislaine Maxwell that 'Glen' has pulled a muscle and is at 'Good Sam' hospital under the care of Dr. Moskovitz, cancelling lunch plans. Other messages record calls from Leslie Wexler (likely Wexner), Cecilia regarding Mr. Cipriani, and Genia.
DOJ-OGR-00032513.jpg
This document contains four phone message slips addressed to 'J.E.' (Jeffrey Epstein) from late January to early February 2005. Messages include a contact update from Vanessa Modely, a financial query regarding Texaco stock from Gorson Co., a call from 'Glen and Eva' (likely Glen Dubin and Eva Andersson-Dubin based on the 914 area code), and a redacted message requesting a return call. The document includes Department of Justice bates stamping.
DOJ-OGR-00032499.jpg
A page from a spiral-bound message book containing four phone messages for 'Mr. J.E.' (Jeffrey Epstein) dated January 7, 2005. Callers include Eduardo Teodorani (calling from Hotel Delano, Miami Beach), Darren, and Sarah (who called twice). The messages document attempts to reach J.E., including a specific note from Sarah stating she could not understand his previous messages.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity