Trove
Sign In Sign Up

THE COURT

Person
Mentions
4828
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
2363
Also known as:
THE COURT, MR. DONALDSON
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00011677.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It records a procedural discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim, Prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge regarding the order of 'alternating strikes' during jury selection. The Judge agrees to allow the defense to start the process because they have ten strikes available.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the Defense (Ms. Sternheim), and the Judge regarding the placement of screens in the courtroom to ensure evidence shown to a witness is not visible to the public in the gallery. The prosecution expresses concern about visibility for their paralegal and the public, which the Defense addresses by clarifying seating arrangements.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011671.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge outlines the protocol for showing electronic evidence to a witness who is testifying under a pseudonym, expressing concern that the material could inadvertently reveal the witness's identity to the gallery. The judge agrees to the proposed method of using limited screens, provided the government is kept fully aware and paper copies are available as a backup.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011664.jpg

This is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings conclude with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is a disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in a criminal case. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, requests and receives permission from the government and court to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two other witnesses, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The court also sets a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the government to provide its order-of-witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011661.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion during a final pretrial conference. The judge inquires about the exclusion of witnesses, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, clarifies that victims have a right to be present after testifying but other witnesses will be excluded. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, then raises a related issue about the admissibility of accusers' prior inconsistent statements.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Mr. Everdell), and the Judge regarding jury instructions for a Mann Act conspiracy count. The specific issue involves whether sexual conduct was illegal under New Mexico law versus New York law, and the age of consent regarding a specific witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011657.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Mr. Rohrbach and the presiding judge. The conversation centers on the legal definition of 'illegal sexual activity' within an indictment, specifically whether events in New Mexico and the intent for activity in New York satisfy the requirements of the Mann Act for conspiracy charges against 'minor Victim 2'. The judge expresses concern about potential jury confusion over the complex legal points being argued.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between the government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge. The discussion centers on whether the potential illegality of sexual conduct in New Mexico can be used as evidence for an enticement charge under New York law. The judge expresses skepticism about the government's approach, pointing out that the charges were not filed under New Mexico law and cautioning against confusing the jury.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg

This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the government's proposed jury instructions are confusing and contrasts them with the defense's position. The argument centers on jurisdiction and the age of consent, specifically regarding 'Accuser 2' and acts committed in New Mexico that were allegedly legal under New Mexico law at the time, versus how they are treated under New York conspiracy law.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011650.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The discussion centers on a legal point about whether a defendant can be convicted based 'solely' on the testimony of 'witness 3' concerning sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The judge seeks to clarify the precise legal standard and the government's stance on the evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011649.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding procedural matters. The court affirms that defense experts are precluded from testifying without providing specific notice as required by Rule 16. The conversation then shifts to a specific limiting instruction for the jury, which states that the defendant cannot be convicted based on testimony about sexual conduct between 'witness 3' and 'Mr. Epstein'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011648.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, involving a discussion between the Judge, defense counsel (Pagliuca, Menninger), and the government (Rohrbach). The primary topic is whether potential expert witnesses LaPorte and Naso will testify; the defense suggests it is unlikely and was done out of caution related to a document concerning 'Accuser No. 2,' while the government expresses concern about being surprised mid-trial.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011647.jpg

This document is page 26 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding Rule 16 disclosures and the sufficiency of notice provided to the defense concerning the opinions of expert witness Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient, they may face issues later, emphasizing equal standards for both parties.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011645.jpg

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Judge regarding expert witness Mr. Flatley. The discussion focuses on the scope of Mr. Flatley's expertise, specifically regarding forensic principles, digital document storage, and metadata, and whether proper notice was given to the defense regarding his opinions. The Judge instructs that any differing expert opinions on these technical matters must be noticed.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated August 10, 2022) involving a legal debate over witness testimony. Ms. Menninger argues that the government did not provide sufficient notice regarding the scope of Mr. Flatley's testimony concerning the extraction of user data and metadata, claiming the '3500 material' was insufficient. Mr. Rohrbach responds that while they view Flatley primarily as a fact witness, they provided expert notice due to the blurred lines between fact and expert testimony in this technical context.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011643.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the rules for disclosing expert testimony and the scope of evidence contained on several hard drives marked as exhibits. The attorneys debate the government's representations about which documents will be used, and Mr. Rohrbach clarifies that a witness, Mr. Kelso, will testify on the general principles of document creation.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011641.jpg

This document is page 20 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text documents a legal argument between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger) and the Judge regarding a witness named Kelso. The debate centers on whether Kelso will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding computer forensics and metadata, and whether sufficient disclosure has been made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

Court transcript / legal filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011639.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms to the judge that an item was made available for inspection by the defense, resolving that issue. The judge then directs the conversation to the next matter: the admissibility of co-conspirator statements for the upcoming trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011637.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the admissibility of 'Government Exhibit 52,' with the judge deciding not to preclude it before trial. They clarify the nature of anticipated testimony from a witness, Ms. Comey, who is expected to authenticate the exhibit by describing its similarity to a book she has seen, even though she is unaware of how the government obtained it.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$162,555,000.00
16 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$162,555,000.00
16 total transactions
Date Type From To Amount Description Actions
N/A Received GHISLAINE MAXWELL THE COURT $750,000.00 Total fine imposed. View
N/A Received GHISLAINE MAXWELL THE COURT $250,000.00 Fine imposed on each count. View
2021-03-23 Received GHISLAINE MAXWELL THE COURT $9,500,000.00 Value of real property offered as collateral. View
2021-03-23 Received security company THE COURT $1,000,000.00 Bond co-signed by a security company. View
2021-03-23 Received GHISLAINE MAXWELL THE COURT $550,000.00 Cash offered as collateral. View
2021-03-23 Received Ghislaine Maxwell... THE COURT $28,500,000.00 Proposed total bond amount. View
2020-12-14 Received Sureties (Family/... THE COURT $0.00 Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... View
2020-07-13 Received Unidentified co-s... THE COURT $5,000,000.00 Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... View
2020-07-10 Received Co-signers (Sibli... THE COURT $5,000,000.00 Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... View
2020-07-10 Received Defense/Co-signers THE COURT $3,750,000.00 Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... View
2020-07-10 Received Co-signers (Sibli... THE COURT $5,000,000.00 Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. View
2020-07-10 Received Ms. Maxwell / Ass... THE COURT $3,750,000.00 Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... View
2020-01-01 Received GHISLAINE MAXWELL THE COURT $22,500,000.00 Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... View
2019-07-18 Received MR. EPSTEIN THE COURT $0.00 Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... View
2019-07-11 Received Jeffrey Epstein THE COURT $77,000,000.00 Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... View
2010-07-01 Received Epstein's counsel THE COURT $5,000.00 Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. View
As Sender
409
As Recipient
1009
Total
1418

Sentencing recommendation

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Requesting an above-guideline sentence to hold the defendant accountable and send a message that no one is above the law.

Statement
N/A
Communication Source

Opposition to December 21 Motion

From: Manhattan District Att...
To: THE COURT

Stated they were not in a position to notify victims as they were not the prosecuting agency.

Affidavit
N/A
Communication Source

Unknown

From: One of the witnesses
To: THE COURT

Letter submitted to the Court which the defense argues should have no legal weight in bail analysis.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Transportation / Instruction

From: jury (implied)
To: THE COURT

A note from the jury regarding transportation, which the defense finds clear but the court finds confusing.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Voir Dire / Background check

From: THE COURT
To: Juror No. 50

Questioning regarding age, residence, education, and employment history.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Arguments that Juror 50's trauma affected his ability to serve.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Conditions of Confinement

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Details on material changes to confinement, access to legal materials, and search frequency

Written status updates
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: THE COURT
To: prospective jurors

Questions to determine impartiality and background.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Guidelines Argument

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Argument regarding the interpretation of 'dangerous sex offenders' guidelines and background commentary.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on conviction basis

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Implied note asking if they can convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Amicus Brief

From: Amicus filer
To: THE COURT

Any authorized amicus brief must be emailed to the Court for docketing within one week of the granting of the motion.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Schedule

From: Jurors
To: THE COURT

We would like to end today at 5 p.m., deliberate from

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Identity/Note

From: THE COURT
To: Counsel/Parties

Transfer of unredacted note to counsel for review and redaction.

Note/electronic copy
N/A
Communication Source

Scheduling and Sealing

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe updates the court that the prosecution anticipates resting their case 'this week' and discusses sealing a document containing pseudonym identities.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Reply Brief

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Legal filing containing information about the defendant's evasion tactics.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Questions or Verdict

From: Foreperson
To: THE COURT

Protocol established: Requests must be in writing, signed by foreperson, given to Marshals.

Written note
N/A
Communication Source

Presentence Report Objections

From: THE COURT
To: Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell

Discussion regarding factual accuracy and objections to the presentence report (PSR) prior to sentencing.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Submission regarding jury instructions

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Mr. Everdell mentions he raised the issue in a letter submission or orally.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty under the second element if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Reconsideration of Court's response

From: the defense
To: THE COURT

Seeking reconsideration and raising possibility of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. Asking for additional instruction.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Letters on 52

From: Counsel (implied)
To: THE COURT

Letters submitted to the judge regarding issue 52.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Question about elements/aiding and abetting

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

A note sent by the jury asking for clarification, interpreted differently by prosecution and defense.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Intention to assert Fifth Amendment privilege

From: Juror 50's counsel
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 intends to plead the Fifth.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Followup letter regarding jury's last note

From: the defense
To: THE COURT

Taking a slightly different approach to the jury's last note than what was argued in court.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury inquiry

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Referenced as 'the jury's last note'.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search