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-00017642.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on confirming the witness's address and validating applications for the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996. Two exhibits, J-5 and J-6, are discussed, with the defense moving to admit J-6 under seal without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017617.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00015620.jpg
This document is a photograph labeled 'Government Exhibit 291' from the legal case 'S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)'. The image, identified as DOJ-OGR-00015620, depicts an interior view of a residence, showing a wooden door opening into a hallway, and serves as evidence in a government legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00015619.jpg
This document is a photograph submitted as Government Exhibit 290 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 Cr. 330). It depicts the interior of a home, showing a living area with a white sofa, a pillow featuring pink flamingos, a framed picture of palm trees, and open wooden double doors leading to a dark room. The image includes a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00015144.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a court filing from August 11, 2025, discusses the rule of secrecy for grand jury matters as established in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). It outlines the specific, narrow exceptions that permit disclosure to government personnel, other grand juries, and law enforcement, or by court order for judicial proceedings and various government investigations. The document then introduces the 'Special Circumstances' Doctrine, developed by the Second Circuit, which allows for disclosure in cases of unusual historical or public interest, citing several precedent cases.
DOJ-OGR-00015139.jpg
This legal document excerpts two key communications regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The first is a letter from the Attorney General (AG) to the FBI Director, demanding the immediate and complete turnover of all Epstein-related files. The second is a subsequent joint DOJ/FBI memorandum from July 6, 2025, which summarizes an exhaustive review of those files, confirming the existence of vast amounts of child abuse material but finding no evidence of an incriminating "client list" or blackmail that would justify investigating other third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00015128.jpg
This document is the title page (page 2 of 3) for a 'Victim Letter' dated August 6, 2025. It was filed on the same date as Document 806 in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE and is marked with the Department of Justice identifier DOJ-OGR-00015128.
DOJ-OGR-00015119.jpg
This legal document argues against the unsealing of grand jury materials related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of unnamed third parties, contends that their privacy interests and the potential for irreparable harm outweigh any public interest in disclosure, citing legal precedent for grand jury secrecy. It also references a similar, recent decision in the Southern District of Florida regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation to support its position that the materials should remain sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00015118.jpg
This is a legal letter from Neil S. Binder of Binder & Schwartz LLP to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer regarding the case United States v. Maxwell. The letter, submitted under seal, addresses the DOJ's motion to unseal grand jury materials that reference the firm's client (whose name is redacted), arguing for the continued maintenance of grand jury secrecy based on established precedent and the lack of justification for special circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00015117.jpg
This document is page 22 of 27 from a court filing, specifically Document 804 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 6, 2025. The page itself is a divider page labeled "Tab 5" and includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number in the footer.
DOJ-OGR-00015116.jpg
This document is the second page of a letter filed on August 6, 2025, by a victim in the Epstein/Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The author expresses deep frustration with the DOJ and FBI regarding the lack of transparency, the sealing of documents, and the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison. The victim demands access to evidence seized from Epstein's properties, supports Senator Wyden's financial investigation, and questions the official narrative of Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00015102.jpg
This document is page 7 of 27 from a legal filing, specifically Document 804 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 6, 2025. The page itself is a divider page labeled "Tab 2". A Bates number in the footer (DOJ-OGR-00015102) indicates its production by the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00015099.jpg
This is the signature page (labeled Page 2 of 2, though part of a larger PDF marked Page 4 of 27) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It is dated August 6, 2025, and is respectfully submitted to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer by Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00015099.
DOJ-OGR-00015089.jpg
Page 3 of a legal filing (Document 803) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text argues the legal standards for unsealing grand jury records, citing the precedent 'In re Craig' and listing the specific factors courts must weigh when considering disclosure. The document footer indicates it was prepared by defense counsel (Markus/Moss) and bears a DOJ production stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00015086.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, dated and filed on August 5, 2025. The order, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, authorizes the Government to file public submissions in a redacted form to protect the privacy interests of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00015076.jpg
This document is a legal declaration filed on August 1, 2025, by Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the transition of legal counsel, confirming that Maxwell has retained David Markus and Melissa Madrigal of Markus Moss PLLC specifically to handle a government unsealing motion. The document confirms Maxwell's consent to Cohen & Gresser's withdrawal and notes that the withdrawing firm asserts no liens and will transfer files to the new counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00015073.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Order filed on July 31, 2025, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer orders the identification of specific information in grand jury transcripts and authorizes the Government to publicly file a redacted letter responding to the order. The document also references the civil litigation case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00015067.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, in which the Government argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Citing the 'magnitude and abhorrence of Epstein's crimes' and a July 6, 2025 Memorandum, the Government asserts that public interest warrants disclosure, subject to redactions protecting victims. The document details that the Epstein grand jury met in June/July 2019, and the Maxwell grand jury met in June/July 2020 and March 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00015064.jpg
This document is a legal filing from July 29, 2025, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the *In re Craig* factors for disclosing grand jury information and references a July 22, 2025 court order directing the Government to submit specific materials. These materials include indices, full transcripts, and proposed redacted versions of both Epstein and Maxwell grand jury proceedings, as well as confirmation regarding whether victims were notified of the motion to unseal.
DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
This document is a court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated July 23, 2025 (likely a filing system date or typo, as the case number is 20 Cr. 330). Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denies Maxwell's motion (Dkt. 793) to access grand jury transcripts, which she requested in order to comment on the Government's pending motion to unseal said transcripts. The Judge cites legal precedent establishing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings and rules that Maxwell failed to demonstrate the 'compelling necessity' required to break that secrecy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity