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-00017927.jpg

This document is page 54 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The page captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, where the Judge ('The Court') addresses a procedural disagreement regarding a question asked by Mr. Pagliuca, noting the necessity of the court reporter. The majority of the page is blank, indicating the session continued on the next page.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question from Ms. Pomerantz, claiming it violates a prior agreement with the government. The Court sustains the objection, expressing bafflement at the apparent misunderstanding or breach of the agreement.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017925.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 details a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The Judge admonishes Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) for approaching a line of questioning regarding 'grooming by proxy' or 'third-party involvement' in a 'pimp-prostitute context,' which the Judge states was precluded or limited during a previous Daubert hearing.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017924.jpg

This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding whether a 'groomer' is always the recipient of sexual gratification. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the questioning, the objection is sustained by the Court, and Ms. Pomerantz subsequently requests a sidebar conference.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017921.jpg

This is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Rocchio (likely an expert witness), is testifying about the psychological trauma of victims realizing they were fooled in a relationship they trusted. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca interrupts the testimony to request a sidebar conference with the Judge.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017902.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Pomerantz questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about the nature of his forensic practice. Dr. Rocchio explains that he is hired by attorneys to conduct psychological evaluations to assess mental health issues related to alleged abuse or to determine the role of mental health in criminal cases for sentencing purposes.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017896.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the beginning of the direct examination of Dr. Lisa Rocchio. Called as a witness by the Government, Dr. Rocchio, a clinical and forensic psychologist, is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about her professional expertise and educational qualifications, including her degrees from Emory University and the University of Rhode Island.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017893.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kane by Ms. Menninger. The questioning concerns a document describing a student as a 'self-employed interior decorator' who is represented by an agent. Defense attorney Mr. Rohrbach objects to the agent's name being read aloud, arguing lack of relevance, and the Court sustains the objection, instructing the jury to look at the document themselves instead.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017891.jpg

A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Rohrbach examines witness Mr. Kane regarding Government Exhibit 761, a student application for 12th grade. The testimony reveals the student's present school is the Alexander W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts, while the exhibit itself is sealed to protect the student/witness's identity.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017890.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a document. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against an objection from defense counsel, stating that the document qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school because it was integrated into their files and relied upon, despite a witness's testimony questioning its reliability. The judge ultimately overrules the objection, allowing the document into evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017889.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting a sidebar objection by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. She argues against the admissibility of a school record, comparing it to a police report with third-party hearsay, specifically regarding a form that lists Jeffrey Epstein as 'financially responsible' for a student referred to as 'Jane'. The defense argues it is unclear who wrote Epstein's name on the form (Jane or her mother) and challenges the reliability of that specific information.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017888.jpg

This document is page 15 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Kane, where attorney Ms. Menninger raises an objection citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) (Business Records Exception). The Judge acknowledges the objection and allows counsel to approach the sidebar to make a record of the argument.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017887.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Kane by Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony focuses on establishing the business records foundation for documents from the 'Professional Children's School,' specifically detailing how applications are reviewed, how families are contacted, and confirming that records are retained in the ordinary course of business. Following this testimony, the government moves to offer an exhibit into evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017880.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures the court resuming session, with the judge addressing the jury and counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, then calls Paul Kane as the next witness to testify.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017878.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) before a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a 'contact book' versus a 'household manual,' with the government arguing that the contact book belongs to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and/or Jeffrey Epstein and constitutes statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy. The judge acknowledges the government's argument regarding the hearsay exception.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017877.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures an argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the admissibility of a 'book' or 'list' (likely an address book) and whether it constitutes hearsay. Pagliuca argues that the government is offering the document to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically that the people listed had contact with 'underage females'—rather than for a non-hearsay purpose like notice.

Court transcript (legal proceeding)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017876.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over the admissibility of a household manual and a contact book. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues the items are not being offered for the truth of their contents to avoid hearsay objections, while the opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, counters by raising issues of relevance. The discussion revolves around legal rules of evidence, specifically sections 803(6) and 901.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017872.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22, documenting proceedings leading up to an adjournment to December 2, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey estimates the government will rest its case in the third week of trial, while defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca anticipates shorter cross-examinations for future witnesses due to less '3500 impeachment material.' The session concludes with the Judge adjourning until the following morning.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017871.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 Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and prosecutors Ms. Comey and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the scheduling of arguments related to 'piercing privilege' and 'waiver' concerning a witness named Jane. The parties also discuss the timeline of the trial, with the government estimating they have about one more week of testimony before resting.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017870.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference between the Court, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Sternheim. The discussion centers on the legal procedure for 'piercing the privilege' regarding lawyer witnesses under subpoena. Specifically, the parties are discussing the prosecution's intent to call a witness named Glassman.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017868.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Besselsen) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony confirms that Jeffrey Epstein was a 'major donor' to a summer camp/arts program (referred to as 'band camp') and was invited to stay at 'the lodge' on campus during the final performances of the summer session.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017867.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 258 of 264 669 LC1VMAX7 Besselsen - cross 1 Q. Mr. Besselsen, just a few questions for you...

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

DOJ-OGR-00017866.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Besselsen, who identifies a document as an application to an arts camp from the summer of 1996. The witness confirms that an address on the document appears to be different from another address they were viewing, after which one attorney concludes questioning and another, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017863.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness, Mr. Besselsen, is being examined by Mr. Rohrbach regarding a Salesforce report titled 'MJS Report' generated from Interlochen's database. The testimony confirms that a specific individual (whose name is withheld in this segment) attended Interlochen arts camp during the summers of 1994, 1995, and 1996.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017862.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Besselsen by government attorney Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony confirms that 'Green Lake Lodge' is a two-bedroom home formerly known as the 'Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge,' and a photo of the lodge (Exhibit 745) is admitted into evidence without objection.

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