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-00017636.jpg

This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger questions a witness named Jane about a letter of recommendation included in her application, specifically inquiring about its content, the qualifications of the unnamed recommender who was on the board of the Palm Beach School of the Arts, and whether Jane solicited the letter. The Court oversees the exchange, which also references government exhibits.

Legal document (court transcript/deposition)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg

This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017632.jpg

This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' (testifying under a pseudonym) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane regarding her applications to Interlochen, specifically asking about her knowledge of financial aid and scholarships, and clarifying her age (13 to 17) during the three summers she attended. The Judge interrupts at the end to clarify if a statement made by the attorney was a question.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017631.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg

This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.

Court transcript page
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017625.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. The parties are debating the timing and method for resolving two or three outstanding issues, weighing the efficiency of handling them immediately against the preference for a sidebar and the dependency of one issue on upcoming witness testimony. The conversation occurs while they are waiting for the jurors to be brought in.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017623.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022, discussing a witness's statements regarding her past residences and applications. The conversation involves attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, and the Court, focusing on discrepancies or clarifications needed about the witness's timeline, particularly her living situation before and after meeting Epstein and moving to New York. The nature of a '302' document, described as a type-up of agents' notes, is also clarified.

Legal document (court transcript)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017617.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.

Court transcript (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg

This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015070.jpg

This document is page 9 of a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 29, 2025, regarding the unsealing of Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials. The Government confirms it has reviewed the transcripts and notified all but one relevant victim (whom they could not reach) about the motion to unseal. Additionally, the Government is submitting indices, transcripts, and proposed redactions to the Court *ex parte* and under seal to protect victim identities.

Legal filing / government response
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015031.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the scientific basis for Rocchio's expert opinions, specifically the studies relied upon and their potential rate of error. Rocchio states he does not rely on a single study and explains that a 'pure error rate' is not typically calculated in social sciences, instead referencing measures like inter-rater reliability.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015030.jpg

This document is page 154 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is testifying about the scientific validity of reasons for false allegations, such as lying, intoxication, and psychiatric disorders. Rocchio states that while false allegations occur, they represent a very small minority of cases and notes a lack of specific scientific research linking the suggested factors as predictors.

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

DOJ-OGR-00015026.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness, Rocchio, about a study the witness relied upon. Pagliuca challenges the study's credibility by pointing out that a key phrase, "right away," is undefined, and Rocchio admits to not having reviewed all the underlying data or cited references in the summary article.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.

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

DOJ-OGR-00015020.jpg

This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Rocchio regarding 'Government Exhibit 6,' a study analyzing delayed reporting of psychological issues. Pagliuca attempts to establish that the current case does not involve allegations of delayed reporting by males, leading to an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz on the grounds that the witness does not know the specific details of the case.

Court transcript (united states v. ghislaine maxwell)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015019.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It documents the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding 'Exhibit 6,' a study on barriers to and facilitators of delayed disclosure in abuse cases. The witness defends their opinion as being based on the totality of their professional experience rather than a single article.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015018.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a 2016/2017 scientific article about the difficulty of identifying predatory behaviors and child molesters ahead of time. The dialogue includes a debate on 'hindsight bias' in characterizing grooming behaviors and concludes with the admission of Defendant's Exhibit B into evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015016.jpg

This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. Attorney Pagliuca successfully moves to admit Defendant's Exhibit A into evidence with no objection from opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz. Mr. Pagliuca then begins to question the witness, addressed as 'Doctor', about another piece of evidence, Exhibit B.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.

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

DOJ-OGR-00015012.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It features an exchange between the Court and a witness named Rocchio regarding the scientific consensus on 'grooming strategies' and 'trauma bonding' in the context of sex work. The witness asserts that the concept of offenders using tactics to develop relationships with victims is well-established in peer-reviewed literature.

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

Juror Bias / Sexual Abuse History

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 testified that his history of sexual abuse would not affect his impartiality.

Hearing testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Post-Hearing Brief

From: Maxwell Defense Team
To: THE COURT

Dismissed Juror 50's responses as 'self-serving'.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Second Motion for Bail

From: . MAXWELL
To: THE COURT

Addressed concerns regarding flight risk and corroboration of evidence.

Legal filing
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Second Bail Motion

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Opposition to bail.

Legal filing
N/A
Communication Source

Third Motion for Bail

From: . MAXWELL
To: THE COURT

Offer to renounce foreign citizenship.

Legal filing
N/A
Communication Source

Admissibility of Photographs

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding whether photographs corroborate a witness's blind description of a residence interior given the time lapse.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Victim Impact Statements

From: Ms. Bryant, Ms. Maria ...
To: THE COURT

Written submissions submitted in accordance with the Court's order.

Written submissions
N/A
Communication Source

Order de-designating documents

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Motion to remove Highly Confidential status from materials.

Motion
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Asked if defendant can be found guilty if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico where intent for sexual activity existed.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Maxwell Br. at 14-15

From: Maxwell Defense Team
To: THE COURT

Speculated that the jury was focused on a 1997 flight.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Responses regarding impartiality, burden of proof, and media consumption (CNN).

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Additional proposed redactions

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Submission of additional redactions under seal

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Maxwell Reply at 23

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Argues that Rule 606 violates Maxwell's constitutional rights.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Juror misconduct inquiry

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Statements about a second juror.

Testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Presentation of Photos

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Everdell explains they only have single copies of certain photos received that morning and proposes walking them to the jury row rather than distributing copies.

Court proceeding
N/A
Communication Source

Withdrawal of arrest warrant request

From: defense (implied)
To: THE COURT

Withdrawal of the request to issue an arrest warrant for witness Kelly.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Disclosure of Maxwell grand jury materials

From: Victims (via represent...
To: THE COURT

Letters urging broad disclosure of investigative records regarding Epstein and Maxwell, provided identities are redacted.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Motion to [Unseal/Redact]

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Government proposes to redact names and personally identifying information of victims and third parties.

Legal filing
N/A
Communication Source

Answering Brief (Ans.Br.)

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Government claims Maxwell is attempting to have the Court weigh in on investigative methods.

Brief
N/A
Communication Source

Briefing Schedule

From: Defense Counsel (Mr. E...
To: THE COURT

Proposal for a briefing schedule after counsel confers.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Question on Count Four

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Opposition to release

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Cited two pages of cases regarding health risks and dangerousness.

Legal brief/reply
N/A
Communication Source

Sidebar Request

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Requesting a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement of a prior witness.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Arguments

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Defendant's brief cited at page 12 regarding legislative history.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Page 32 note 13

From: Brune/Defense Team
To: THE COURT

Stated defendants had no basis to inquire whether Conrad was lying.

Memorandum
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