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-00005618.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Doc 385) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues that the Government failed to provide timely notice of 'other act evidence' under Rule 404(b) and requests that the Court view any excuse for this delay with skepticism. The defense requests additional time to investigate newly disclosed materials which the Government claims are 'direct evidence' of conspiracy, though the specific details of these materials are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005611.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 385) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines arguments related to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), asserting that the Government failed to provide proper notice regarding evidence and that Maxwell requires additional time to respond to 'scant notice.' The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005611).
DOJ-OGR-00005603.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents a legal argument citing precedents (Katz, Campagnuolo, Wicker) regarding discovery violations, willful misconduct, and the suppression of evidence as a sanction. The filing argues that the government failed to comply with a disclosure order issued months prior and criticizes the government's bad faith in seeking reconsideration rather than compliance.
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, involving Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the government is evading a court order to identify specific co-conspirator statements by instead providing massive 'document dumps.' The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence and case law (Tracy, Daly, Tellier) regarding the admissibility of hearsay and the requirements for proving a conspiracy exists.
DOJ-OGR-00005588.jpg
This legal document is a motion from the Government arguing that the court should preclude the defense from calling case agents to testify about matters the Government deems irrelevant. These topics include the thoroughness, scope, timeline, and charging decisions of prior investigations in Florida and New York. The Government contends that this testimony is not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence and asks the court to require the defense to make an offer of proof before introducing such arguments or evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00005570.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text outlines a proposal from the Government to protect the identities of 'Minor Victims' by not speaking their names in open court. The rationale is to prevent people in the gallery or those reading the transcript from disseminating the names online.
DOJ-OGR-00005567.jpg
This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 383) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses 'Minor Victim-4,' arguing that the defense's attempts to attack her credibility based on statements made to the USAO-SDFL are irrelevant to her privacy interests regarding her upcoming testimony. Large portions of the page are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005566.jpg
This document is page 12 (internal page 11) of a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The main body text is entirely redacted. A visible footnote discusses a protective order (Dkt. No. 37) previously entered by the Court to protect the privacy and identities of alleged victims and witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00005559.jpg
This legal document is a page from a government motion arguing against publicizing the full names of four minor victims in an upcoming criminal trial. The government contends that the defense has not shown a specific need for this disclosure, and that the court should prioritize the victims' privacy and dignity. The motion cites several legal precedents that support protecting witnesses' identities, especially when safety and privacy are concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00005557.jpg
This document is page 3 of 40 from a legal filing (Document 383) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a Table of Contents listing arguments G through I, which focus on excluding evidence of victims' consent, addressing defense refusals regarding motions, and preventing the defense from mentioning previous civil litigation outcomes to the jury. The page bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00005554.jpg
This document is the cover page for Exhibit I in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The document explicitly states it was 'FILED UNDER SEAL,' meaning its contents are confidential and restricted from public view. It is identified as Document 382-9 and has a Department of Justice (DOJ) tracking number.
DOJ-OGR-00005550.jpg
This document summarizes the recollections of 'AK,' a Human Trafficking Coordinator, regarding potential investigations into Epstein at SDNY. AK denies that attorneys urged an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell as a 'duo,' stating the focus was on Epstein and Maxwell was only mentioned in passing. AK also denies ever meeting or speaking with attorney David Boies and has no memory of a second meeting on the subject in the summer of 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00005545.jpg
This single page is a placeholder notice for 'Exhibit F' in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It indicates the actual exhibit content was filed under seal on October 29, 2021, and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00005545.
DOJ-OGR-00005528.jpg
This document is a cover page for 'Exhibit D' filed in court case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE on October 29, 2021. The document indicates that the exhibit's contents are sealed from public view. The Bates number suggests it is part of a production from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
DOJ-OGR-00005525.jpg
This document is a cover page for "Exhibit A" in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It was filed on October 29, 2021, and is marked as "FILED UNDER SEAL," indicating its contents are confidential. The page is Bates-stamped DOJ-OGR-00005525.
DOJ-OGR-00005519.jpg
This document is page 64 of a legal filing (Document 382) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues against government motions to exclude evidence regarding Maxwell's 'charitable works' and 'family history,' suggesting these may become relevant if the government opens those topics. Section X argues strongly against the government's request to preview the defense's evidence, using the metaphor of having 'hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped,' while noting that accusers are testifying under anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00005514.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court filing (Document 382) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues against the government's motion to exclude evidence, asserting that they have the right to reference evidence in opening statements if they have a good-faith belief it is admissible. Specifically, the defense intends to introduce evidence showing that Jeffrey Epstein abused many victims without Maxwell's knowledge or participation, arguing this is relevant to refuting the conspiracy charge, while the government attempts to characterize this as inadmissible 'good acts' or 'propensity' evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00005502.jpg
This legal filing argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding the USAO-SDFL's 2008 decision not to charge Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights inconsistencies in a redacted witness's testimony between 2007 and 2020, specifically noting that the witness only accused Maxwell of sexual contact (fondling breasts) 13 years later during an interview with the New York FBI. The document lists various evidentiary exhibits including message pad slips, phone records, and FedEx records.
DOJ-OGR-00005495.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 382) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It presents a legal argument citing case law (Kyles v. Whitley, Bowen v. Maynard) to support the admissibility of evidence regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues these elements are necessary to challenge the thoroughness and good faith of the government's investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 380) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It contains a Government argument (Section A) requesting the Court preclude the Defense from presenting evidence regarding government charging decisions. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and case law (Rosado, Borrero) to argue that such evidence is irrelevant, hearsay, and likely to confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005413.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Doc 380) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues for the admissibility of 'prior consistent statements' made by Minor Victims to other witnesses regarding sexual abuse by the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s. The text asserts these statements, made over a decade ago, refute potential defense claims of recent fabrication or improper influence.
DOJ-OGR-00005404.jpg
This is a legal document filed on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this filing, the Government argues for protective measures for victims who are expected to give sensitive testimony about sexual abuse that occurred when they were minors. Specifically, the Government requests that 'Minor Victim-1' and 'Minor Victim-3' be allowed to testify under pseudonyms to protect their well-being and prevent harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00005399.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It discusses legal standards and Second Circuit precedents regarding the protection of witness identities versus a defendant's right to cross-examination. The text cites various cases (Marcus, Marti, Urena, Cavallaro) to support the argument that courts must balance witness safety against the defense's need for information, particularly in cases involving sex trafficking or safety risks.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity