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-00019033.jpg

This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of David Rodgers, a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning focuses on flight protocols, establishing that while cockpit doors were closed on the Gulfstream and Boeing aircraft (obscuring the view of the passenger cabin), Rodgers was never explicitly instructed by Epstein that he was forbidden from leaving the cockpit or mingling with passengers.

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

DOJ-OGR-00019031.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers, likely a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein. Rodgers testifies that during thousands of flights piloted for Epstein between 1994 and 2004 (and after), he never observed females on the plane who appeared to be under the age of 18 or 19 without guardians. He specifically confirms that a woman referred to as 'Jane' appeared to be at least 18 years old when he met her.

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

DOJ-OGR-00019023.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the cross-examination of Mr. Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes the employment timeline of Rodgers and his friend Larry Visoski as pilots for Jeffrey Epstein. Rodgers began as chief pilot in 1991 with Visoski as co-captain; they swapped roles in late 2004, and Rodgers continued working for Epstein until 2019.

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

DOJ-OGR-00019022.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. An attorney, Ms. Comey, asks the judge to direct the jury to review Government Exhibit 14, specifically focusing on a child's name and birth date entry. The opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, states he has no objection to this request.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019008.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness confirms details of two flights from January 2001: flight 1444 on Jan 26th from Teterboro, NJ to Palm Beach, FL, and flight 1445 on Jan 29th from Palm Beach to St. Thomas. Rodgers affirms that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts were all passengers on flight 1444.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019001.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Rodgers - direct) discussing specific entries in flight logs from 1997 and 1998. The testimony confirms a 1997 flight where Jeffrey Epstein was the sole passenger, and a 1998 flight from Palm Beach to Teterboro where Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person identified only as 'Jane' were passengers. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, objected to the mention of 'Jane,' but was overruled.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018996.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Mr. Rodgers testifies that he recalls one female passenger on Mr. Epstein's planes who he understood attended 'Interlochen'. Ms. Comey then instructs Mr. Rodgers to silently identify the passenger's full name using Government Exhibit 12.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018995.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a brief exchange where the judge (THE COURT) confirms with Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no other matters before deciding to bring in the jury and addressing the witness, Mr. Rodgers.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018992.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, Ms. Comey (for the government), and Mr. Everdell. The attorneys agree on two edits to a limiting jury instruction for an upcoming witness's testimony concerning an alleged incident with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico. The key change is replacing the term "sexual conduct" with "physical contact" to describe the alleged event.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018991.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and government attorney Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the procedural issue of raising a new argument that was not addressed during a witness's examination, specifically in relation to the testimony of Mr. Alessi. The judge explains their position while affirming they will keep an open mind to future arguments from both sides before the court goes into recess.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018990.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Comey, and the judge regarding whether the defense had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness named Mr. Alessi. The judge also mentions a planned briefing on "Government Exhibit 52" as indicated by a Mr. Rohrbach.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018989.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the examination of a witness named Rodgers. The proceedings involve a discussion between the Court, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell regarding the redaction of a name ('Carolyn') and phone numbers from evidence. Mr. Everdell also coordinates the placement of folders for the jury ahead of cross-examination, and the parties agree to discuss an 'in limine instruction' after the lunch break.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018988.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey. The judge rules that document redactions are overly broad and must be narrowed. Ms. Comey agrees, noting the task will be time-intensive, and receives permission from the Court to complete the work over an upcoming long weekend.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018987.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) during the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers confirms that the initials 'JE' and 'GM' in a logbook refer to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, respectively. Following the dismissal of the jury for lunch, defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a procedural issue regarding the government's practice of referring to other flight passengers as 'and others' without naming them.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018979.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Comey is conducting a direct examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers. They are discussing Government Exhibit 662, which is identified as a logbook, and Ms. Comey asks the witness to explain the columns in the logbook, starting with the date.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018972.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on establishing a timeline of Ghislaine Maxwell's residences (moving from a larger apartment to a studio, then to 84th Street, then a townhouse) and mentions the death of her father in November 1991. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises objections regarding foundation and hearsay, which are ruled upon by the Court.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018971.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The transcript captures an exchange where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, argues against the notion that moving into a smaller apartment implies poverty, an argument the court overrules. The testimony also references a point in time when an unnamed female first met Mr. Epstein.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018970.jpg

This document is a transcript of a sidebar conference during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense (Mr. Everdell) argues against admitting evidence regarding the death of Maxwell's father and her subsequent move to a smaller apartment, claiming it predates the alleged conspiracy by three years. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) argues this evidence is relevant to establish motive, specifically that Maxwell was not wealthy and participated in crimes with Jeffrey Epstein in exchange for financial support, including the purchase of a large townhouse.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018967.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as 'number two' in the hierarchy below Jeffrey Epstein. The witness recounts meeting Maxwell in July 1991, describes her appearance and personality at that time, and positively identifies her in the courtroom.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018962.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a transition between witnesses. After counsel finishes with a witness named Mrs. Hesse, she is excused, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, calls David Rodgers to the stand. Mr. Rodgers is sworn in and, during the initial phase of his direct examination, identifies his profession as a pilot.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018960.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a series of messages from court exhibits addressed to individuals named Mr. JE, Sarah, and Jeffrey. The judge (THE COURT) also interjects to provide instructions and clarifications to the jury and counsel.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018959.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her precision in taking messages. The questioning focuses on a specific document, labeled '1C', which contains messages for a 'Mr. Epstein' and 'Sarah', but which Mrs. Hesse claims she did not write and appears blank on her copy.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018958.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding messages she recorded. The questioning focuses on identifying the recipients of these messages, specifically Mr. Epstein (initials JE) and a person named Sarah, by referring to an exhibit labeled GX-1B.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018957.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Ms. Hesse about her knowledge of women visiting Jeffrey Epstein for massages when Ghislaine Maxwell was not present, which Hesse confirms based on messages she took. The testimony also establishes that Hesse knew Maxwell had a home in New York but was unaware of a residence in Miami.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018954.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination involving a witness named Hesse. The testimony focuses on Hesse's employment history with Maxwell and Epstein, specifically when she started (roughly September 2003) and stopped working for them (around 2004), and that she was hired by Epstein after an interview with Maxwell.

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

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Indicated the jury thought it could convict if intent was for sexual activity in New Mexico.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Additional proposed redactions

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Submission of additional redactions under seal

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty if they aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Victim Impact Statement

From: Ms. Farmer
To: THE COURT

Description of psychological trauma, survivor guilt, and the grooming tactics used by Epstein and Maxwell.

Court testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Response to March 18, 2021 order

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Government's response regarding redactions.

Letter (referenced)
N/A
Communication Source

Request to call attorneys as witnesses

From: defense
To: THE COURT

Request to call Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman to testify during the defense case-in-chief.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Guidelines Calculation

From: THE COURT
To: Courtroom

Judge outlines offense levels, criminal history category, and imprisonment range.

Court proceeding
N/A
Communication Source

Gov. Mem.

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Cited as 'Gov. Mem. at 11', containing concessions regarding evidence.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Instructions

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

Instructions regarding Mann Act, Counts Two and Four, and New York Penal Law Section 130.55

Trial testimony/instructions
N/A
Communication Source

Gov. Mem.

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Cited as 'Gov. Mem. at 11', containing concessions regarding evidence.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 191

From: BSF
To: THE COURT

Correspondence regarding the subpoena.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Referenced as 'Juror 50's Questionnaire'

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Motion for a New Trial

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Referenced as 'The Defendant's Motion for a New Trial'

Legal motion
N/A
Communication Source

Oral argument on motion for new trial

From: PAUL SHECHTMAN
To: THE COURT

Shechtman arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Reply Brief

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Described by Cohen as an effort to 'throw some dirt' on his client.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Explanation of evidence

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Government explained its position in a letter regarding the deposition.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Questionnaire (Question 48 and 25)

From: THE COURT
To: Juror 50

Questions regarding history of sexual abuse or being a victim of crime.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Post-Hearing Briefing

From: Defendant (Maxwell)
To: THE COURT

Argued Juror 50 was biased due to lack of concern for instructions during questionnaire.

Briefing
N/A
Communication Source

Explanation of conduct

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Testified he was distracted during questionnaire but attentive during trial.

Testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Instructions

From: THE COURT
To: prospective jurors

Videotaped instructions explaining the selection process and nature of charges

Video instructions
N/A
Communication Source

Request for supplies and clarification

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Requesting supplies, Matt's transcript, and asking a question regarding the definition of 'enticement'.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Note

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

Providing supplies, Matt's transcript, and referring the jury to specific page/line numbers (21 and 33) regarding the definition of enticement.

Judicial response
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: THE COURT
To: Juror 50

Questions 25, 48, and 49 regarding personal history.

Legal document
N/A
Communication Source

Reply Brief

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Contains allegations trying to make the client look sinister.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Redactions

From: Ms. Comey
To: THE COURT

Discussing the redaction of phone numbers for Carolyn and third parties.

Court dialogue
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