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-00018173.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on confirming Alessi's prior sworn testimony about his chain of command, where he identified Mr. Epstein as his direct supervisor and Ms. Maxwell as the secondary contact.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018167.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi, who testifies that he, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell all lived at the residence on El Brillo Way during major construction in 1994. Alessi confirms he had complete access to the house during this time.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018163.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, regarding a 2020 declaration where he stated he was instructed by Jeffrey Epstein to pick up a woman referred to as 'Ms. Jane' in West Palm Beach and drive her to Epstein's home. Alessi expresses confusion about the 'declaration' terminology but confirms that the signature on the document dated July 9 is definitely his.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018162.jpg

This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Ms. Comey objects to the defense using a prior declaration, arguing it isn't inconsistent, but the Court overrules the objection, allowing Mr. Pagliuca to question the witness about the discrepancy between 'multiple occasions' (testimony) and 'one' (declaration).

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018161.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the consistency of a witness's (Alessi) testimony. The discussion focuses on impeaching the witness over the specific years (between 1993-1996) and the number of occasions he observed events involving Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and a person named Jane in West Palm Beach. The attorneys quote prior statements to challenge the witness's current testimony during cross-examination.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018160.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing a sidebar conversation between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. The discussion focuses on a semantic argument regarding whether the witness's prior testimony of 'multiple occasions' is inconsistent with a specific statement of observing a person named 'Jane' exactly 'three' times at Epstein's Palm Beach home. The defense argues that 'three' contradicts 'multiple,' while the Court questions this logic.

Court transcript (sidebar conference)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018159.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It depicts a brief exchange during the cross-examination of witness Alessi, where attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues about inconsistencies in specific paragraphs, but the Court sustains objections against them.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018158.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of witness Juan Alessi (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Alessi about his signature on a document labeled 'JA-1' dated July 9, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to the reading of the document, claiming it is not inconsistent testimony, while Pagliuca moves to introduce the entire exhibit.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018156.jpg

This document is page 55 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a procedural discussion during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge discuss referencing specific lines from 'yesterday's testimony' and a deposition to establish context for the witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018155.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on prior deposition testimony from exhibit 3504-22. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects, arguing that the testimony is not inconsistent with what has already been presented, leading to a procedural discussion with the judge.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018153.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi) by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's previous testimony in 2016, conducted in Fort Lauderdale by Brad Edwards (Virginia Roberts' lawyer), regarding a person named 'Jane' and events in 1994 or 1995. Alessi claims in the current testimony that he may have confused 'two girls' during that previous deposition.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018151.jpg

This document is a transcript page from a court sidebar conference in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca apologizes for an unintentional error during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey criticizes his preparation and suggests a protocol for reading prior inconsistent statements, while the Judge accepts the apology as an accident but warns that a different approach will be needed if the error repeats.

Court transcript (sidebar conference)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018149.jpg

Page 48 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca asks if Alessi met a person identified as 'Jane' in 1998 or 2000, which the witness denies. The Court intervenes to ensure 'Jane's' real name is not mentioned, and Pagliuca confirms he has redacted the name from his copies.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018147.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's purchase of a $590,000 property with his wife in West Palm Beach in September 2002, which is linked chronologically to a break-in at Mr. Epstein's house. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains the objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018143.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi, filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony references a previous deposition from September 8, 2009, where Alessi admitted to stealing a total of $6,300 on two separate occasions at night. The questioning attorney attributes the theft to Alessi's 'financial problems,' which Alessi appears to confirm.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018141.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his prior deposition testimony concerning an incident where he went to a house at night to get money while no one was home. The court is also present, facilitating the proceeding.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018134.jpg

This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a moment where Ms. Comey addresses the court regarding display screens, followed by the Judge instructing Ms. Williams to bring in the jury. A witness, Mr. Alessi (likely Juan Alessi, Epstein's former house manager), is then greeted and told to take his seat.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018133.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a logistical discussion between a judge and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca). The main topic is how to display video evidence to the jury without it being visible at the counsel's tables. The timing of this technical arrangement is coordinated around a planned 10:30 morning break and the upcoming cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018132.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys (Moe, Everdell, Comey) and the Judge discussing the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' specifically her detailed description of the interior and artwork of a house. Additionally, Ms. Comey raises a privacy concern regarding ensuring that a video shown to jurors does not simultaneously appear on public screens in overflow rooms, which is relevant for the witness following Mr. Alessi.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018129.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell are discussing with the judge the proper way to present evidence, including items in a bag and photographs of a residence. Mr. Everdell raises a concern about the relevance of photographs taken during a 2019 search, as they depict the residence's interior 15 years after the alleged conspiracy ended in 2004.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018128.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. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe debating the admissibility and description of 'costumes' (Government Exhibit 53) and photographs of them (Exhibits 919 and 920). The defense argues specifically that these items must not be described to the jury as 'schoolgirl outfits' to avoid prejudice.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018127.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the presentation of evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, objects to the prosecution's proposal to show the jury a bag of costumes and related photographs, arguing that this should not happen until 'witness 3' testifies to establish the items' relevance. Everdell expresses concern that showing the items prematurely could unfairly prejudice the jury if the witness's testimony is delayed or does not occur.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018126.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge regarding the admission of evidence, which is revealed to be photographs of costumes. The judge rules the evidence is relevant but reserves a final decision on its admission pending connecting testimony from a future witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018123.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely from the defense, argues against admitting costumes as evidence, claiming they are irrelevant and would prejudice the jury. In response, Ms. Moe, for the prosecution, argues the evidence is highly relevant to counter the defense's repeated claims that Epstein had no interest in underage girls, citing his possession of "schoolgirl outfits" near his massage room.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018122.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence. The key points are the government's intent to use photographs of a massage room rather than the physical table, and Mr. Everdell's argument that costumes found in a 2019 search are irrelevant as they were discovered 15 years after the alleged conspiracy.

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