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-00018322.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a cross-examination of a witness named Dawson by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to a question about a residence, leading Mr. Everdell to request a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement by a prior witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018320.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of Sergeant Dawson by Ms. Comey regarding Government Exhibits 1, 3, and 4, which the witness identifies as message books found during a search warrant. The Judge interrupts briefly to ask the witness to remove their mask and speak closer to the microphone.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018313.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Mr. Parkinson, who is excused by the court to catch a flight. Subsequently, the government (represented by Ms. Comey) calls Sergeant Michael Dawson as a witness, who is sworn in and begins his direct examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018310.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining witness Mr. Parkinson regarding photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 234 and 245) which depict Jeffrey Epstein's desk and bookcase shelves. The exhibits are noted as being 'under seal'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018309.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. An attorney questions Parkinson about Government Exhibits 235 and 292, establishing that photographs of a "windy staircase" do not show any pictures on the adjacent wall. The proceedings also involve a discussion among attorneys and the judge about another piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 234, which is confirmed to be sealed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018308.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a cross-examination involving 'Parkinson,' dated August 10, 2022. The discussion centers on a diagram of a house, specifically its foyer and staircase. Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibits 235 and 292, which the Court approves, indicating a transition in the presentation of evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018303.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on the floor plan of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence, specifically identifying a 'staff' room located near the kitchen, which is identified in Government Exhibit 238 as a small office. Attorneys Everdell and Comey discuss the admissibility of Exhibit 238 with the Judge.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018302.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning confirms that a house Parkinson had previously searched was undergoing renovations at the time, evidenced by carpet samples, floor plans, and architectural drawings. The proceedings also involve referencing 'Government Exhibit 298' for the witness and jury to view.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018296.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson (likely a police officer) by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony covers Parkinson's early interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a burglary investigation in October 2003 and casual encounters seeing Epstein jogging in Palm Beach. It concludes by introducing the topic of a search warrant executed on October 20, 2005.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018295.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about a visit of under four hours to a residence on October 5, 2003, to speak with Mr. Epstein, and denies knowing or seeing Ghislaine Maxwell there. An attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to a question about a burglar on the grounds of relevance and hearsay.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018293.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on a past meeting between Parkinson and Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein's house, specifically in his main office. They discuss a burglary incident where Epstein alleged that cash was stolen from a bag near his desk.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018287.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the admission of 'Exhibit 51' without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey subsequently requests that Detective Byrne come forward to set up and publish the exhibit for the jury.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018286.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibit 51 as a massage table that he personally seized from a bathroom at 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully offers the table into evidence without objection from Mr. Everdell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018284.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Parkinson is being questioned by Ms. Comey regarding a photograph (Government Exhibit 285) showing a desktop in a bathroom anteroom at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibit is admitted under seal to protect a party's interests, preventing the witness from reading specific writing on the picture aloud in open court.

Court transcript (trial testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018282.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by Ms. Comey. The proceedings involve directing jurors to view Government Exhibits 282, 286, and 287 in their binders, followed by the presentation of Exhibits 283 and 284 on a screen, which the witness identifies as photographs of a room on the second floor, north side of a property.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018280.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated August 10, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The testimony centers on the identification of photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 278, 281, 282, 286, and 287) depicting the interior of a property, specifically mentioning a 'white hassock,' 'pink three-cushioned couch,' and the 'second floor.' The Judge intervenes briefly to admit evidence and instruct the witness to speak into the microphone.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018279.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Comey questions a witness, Mr. Parkinson, about an exhibit, Government 278. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibit as a fair and accurate photograph of the shower room at 358 El Brillo Way as it looked on October 20, 2005, after which Ms. Comey offers it into evidence without objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018278.jpg

This document is page 177 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically 'school costumes' and photographs thereof. The Judge rules that a foundation must be laid through a witness, suggesting Special Agent Maguire for this purpose. Following the ruling, the jury is recalled and a witness named Mr. Parkinson takes the stand.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal dispute where prosecutors Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request to brief an issue regarding photographic evidence, accusing the defense of 'sandbagging' by objecting late. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell denies the accusation, while the Judge notes a 'factual disjointedness' regarding the evidence.

Court transcript (trial proceedings)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018274.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'massage room' inside a residence. The Judge sustains an objection to the photos because they were taken over 20 years after the events described by a witness, and depict 'highly mobile items' that may not accurately reflect the room's state at the relevant time.

Court transcript / trial proceedings
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring a legal argument between an attorney (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs. The attorney argues the photos corroborate a witness's 'blind description' of a residence's interior. The Judge expresses skepticism due to the significant passage of time (15-20 years) and the fact that the photos may depict 'movable items' rather than permanent structures.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018272.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'New York house' (implied to be Epstein's). The prosecution argues the photos corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' who described specific decor (nude artwork, animal decorations, and a red massage room) present during her visits between 1994 and her early twenties.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018271.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves the Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell discussing procedural matters regarding the sealing of documents and objections to specific evidence (the '900 series' exhibits). Mr. Everdell notes that these objections relate to a search conducted in 2019 and will become relevant when Agent Maguire testifies to introduce the exhibits.

Court transcript
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