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-00020907.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg

This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020892.jpg

This document is a transcript page (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings, indicated by 'M38TMAX1') regarding 'Juror 50'. The Court grants Juror 50 'use immunity' following an assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges, protecting them from prosecution based on their testimony provided they do not commit perjury. The Court also explicitly instructs the juror not to reveal information regarding jury deliberations or thought processes during the trial.

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

DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020857.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) while the jury is not present. The discussion centers on a letter submitted by the defense overnight, which the judge just received. Ms. Moe argues that the letter merely repeats a legal argument about jury instructions that the defense made the previous day and which the Court had already considered and rejected.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.

Court transcript / legal filing (appeal appendix)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg

This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020843.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020842.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 02/28/2023. It features a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger before a Judge regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of 'transportation' for illegal sexual activity. The discussion specifically focuses on a flight to New Mexico involving a victim referred to as 'Jane' and whether the intent of that specific travel leg was for sexual activity.

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

DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg

This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.

Court transcript / appeal appendix
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020777.jpg

This document is page 18 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Court rejects arguments regarding missing witnesses, specifically noting that potential testimony from the Palm Beach investigation or Epstein himself would likely not have been credible or exculpatory. The Court also rules that pretrial publicity and delays in prosecution have not caused substantial prejudice to Maxwell's right to a fair trial.

Court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019061.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief procedural exchange between the judge (THE COURT) and Ms. Comey about bringing the jury and a witness, identified as Rodgers, into the courtroom. After Ms. Comey agrees to the procedure, the judge gives the order to proceed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019060.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a moment during a trial where the judge calls for a mid-afternoon break. The cross-examination of witness Rodgers by defense attorney Everdell is paused, and the jury and witness are dismissed. The attorneys for the government (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) confirm they have no immediate matters to discuss, with Mr. Everdell noting he is less than halfway through his questioning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019044.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on communications in the 2000s, specifically confirming that the witness used cell phones to communicate about flights with a Mr. Visoski and that they had Sarah Kellen's number programmed in their phone. The court briefly interrupts to admonish the speakers for talking over one another.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019042.jpg

A transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The defense attorney attempts to refresh Rodgers' recollection using a document regarding Sarah Kellen taking over as Jeffrey Epstein's primary assistant in late 2001. There is some confusion regarding which specific page and paragraph the witness should be reading.

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

DOJ-OGR-00019034.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The witness confirms they were never given any rules about mingling with passengers or interacting with other pilots and staff associated with Mr. Epstein. The transcript also briefly discusses the logistics of using the restroom on a Gulfstream aircraft during flights to Europe.

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