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-00018917.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Shawn identifies individuals in a photograph from Melissa's 16th birthday and testifies about visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house multiple times with Melissa, and on one occasion with Carolyn. He also states that Melissa went inside the house with another individual named Amanda.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018916.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, where a witness named Shawn is under direct examination. Shawn identifies Government Exhibit 105 as a photograph from Melissa's 16th birthday, which he attended, and names Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace as being in the picture. Following a request from attorney Ms. Comey to protect privacy, the court admits the exhibit into evidence under seal.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018915.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on a girl named Melissa, who was 16 years old when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house accompanied by a woman named Carolyn. The witness states that after being inside for an hour, Melissa and Carolyn emerged carrying money.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018914.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the admissibility of testimony concerning a person named Amanda. The Judge sustains an objection regarding the testimony, noting that previous testimony established a belief that the individual was 17 years old.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018911.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies three women—Melissa, Amanda Lazlo, and Carolyn—as former girlfriends he dated simultaneously. Crucially, the witness testifies that the first time he saw Amanda Lazlo go to Jeffrey Epstein's house, she was approximately 15 or 16 years old.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018909.jpg

This document is a transcript page from the direct examination of a witness named Shawn in the case US v. Maxwell. The testimony focuses on a girl named Carolyn, described as a 14-year-old middle school dropout who visited Jeffrey Epstein's house. The witness confirms Carolyn knew 'Maxwell' but could not pronounce her first name, and the questioning begins to address gifts or money Carolyn received.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018902.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies the location of Jeffrey Epstein's house as El Brillo Way on Palm Beach Island and contrasts the affluence of Palm Beach with West Palm Beach, where they lived. The witness explains they rarely visited Palm Beach because they lacked money.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018896.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the transition between witnesses in a trial. The court excuses a witness, Ms. Gill, and the government's attorney, Ms. Comey, calls the next witness, "Shawn." The judge explains that Shawn is testifying under a pseudonym to protect a prior witness's identity and instructs courtroom sketch artists not to draw Shawn's likeness before Ms. Comey begins her direct examination.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018894.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. It captures the moment an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concludes his questioning of a witness, Gill Velez, by pointing the jury to an exhibit labeled "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the same witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018893.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Gill (Gill Velez), about a personnel action notice for an individual named Sky Roberts, which is entered as Government Exhibit 823. The key information established from the document is that Sky Roberts' date of hire was April 11, 2000.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018892.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Gill Velez. The testimony concerns the authentication of Government Exhibit 823, which is identified as a personnel action notice regarding the original hiring of Sky Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018887.jpg

This document is page 25 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Mr. Rohrbach argues to the Court regarding the reliability of forms filled out by Mr. Roberts, an employee of Mar-a-Lago, concerning his dependents and insurance coverage. The argument centers on whether Mr. Roberts had a business duty to be truthful to his employer, distinguishing the situation from the precedent set in United States v. Lieberman, though the Court remains skeptical.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018886.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel (Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Comey) about Exhibit 52. After confirming no further witnesses will testify about the exhibit, Mr. Rohrbach informs the court of his plan to submit a letter that evening arguing for its admission. The judge instructs him to confer with defense counsel on the matter before the court takes a recess.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018885.jpg

This document is page 23 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The dialogue involves a debate between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) regarding the admissibility of 'record 824' and the implications of testimony provided by Juan Alessi concerning the year 2001. The proceedings are paused by the Judge to wait for a juror experiencing train issues.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018883.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues against the admission of a school record (Government Exhibit 761) which identifies Mr. Epstein as a financial guarantor for a family, arguing the school did not verify that specific piece of information. The Court explains that the evidence was admitted to show that the family indicated Epstein was providing financial assistance at the time.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018882.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding dated August 10, 2022, discussing legal arguments related to factual records, employer practices, and the admissibility of evidence. Key points include an objection to Government Exhibit 761, a Professional Children's School application for Jane, due to unverified financial guarantor information, and the Court's ruling on the relevance of Mr. Epstein's alleged financial assistance to a witness's family. The discussion also touches upon legal precedents for adoptive business records.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018880.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a legal discussion between the Court and Ms. Sternheim about the 'Lieberman' case precedent. The core issue is the distinction between a form's existence and its content, with the Court stating that for the content to be admissible, there must be evidence of verification by the employer. Ms. Sternheim further argues that the current witness lacks the personal knowledge to testify about the procedures in question.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018877.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the admission of exhibits 823 and 824, followed by a recess due to a juror's train delay. The Judge cites the case 'United States v. Lieberman' in relation to arguments about insurance cards and employer verification of employee information.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018876.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The judge discusses the admissibility of insurance forms under the business records exception. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a minor issue regarding a 'fourth witness' identified as Mr. Rogers, and the court prepares to break until the jury arrives.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018874.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues against admitting insurance requests as business records, stating they do not prove Virginia Roberts was employed by or present at Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach clarifies the government's intent is to show Virginia Roberts was the dependent of Sky Roberts, who is confirmed to be a Mar-a-Lago employee.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018872.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018871.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Sternheim is arguing before the Court regarding the admissibility of two documents (823 and 824) concerning an individual named Sky Roberts. The text reveals that Document 824 is an insurance record listing Sky Roberts' dependents, specifically identifying Virginia Roberts as his daughter.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018869.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which the judge outlines a specific limiting instruction for the jury. The instruction concerns upcoming testimony from a witness about sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico. The judge clarifies that this specific conduct is not the 'illegal sexual activity' charged in the indictment and provides guidance on how the jury may consider this testimony.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018868.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.

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