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-00018732.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Carolyn confirms her previous testimony from December 2009, stating she would call Mr. Epstein's residence to arrange to give him a massage for payment. She specifies that she would often speak with household staff, identified as 'Sarah or Maxwell' or possibly a cook, to make these arrangements.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018731.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, likely from the U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Prosecutor Ms. Comey is examining a witness named Carolyn regarding her prior testimony from December 2009. Carolyn confirms that while she cannot recall specific dates of her visits to Epstein's home, she remembers the events clearly, and states that Epstein did not contact her directly, but rather had 'Sarah or Maxwell' call her.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018730.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that reading only two lines of a prior statement removes necessary context. The Court rules that the witness can read the 'whole thing,' and prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees, coordinating specific line numbers (136, line 23 through line 6) with the defense.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018726.jpg

This document is a court transcript page from the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies that in 2007, the FBI interviewed her specifically about Jeffrey Epstein, not Ghislaine Maxwell. She discusses her employment as a stripper and escort after turning 18 and details a 2009 lawsuit she filed against Epstein and Sarah Kellen for emotional damage and complicity.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018721.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn discusses her past visits to Jeffrey Epstein's house, stating she went for money to support her son, and stopped going when she 'became too old' at 18. She also admits to using and being addicted to cocaine and pain pills, continuing after her association with Epstein ended.

Legal transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018701.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn by Ms. Comey. The testimony covers the identification of Carolyn's mother (Dorothy) and describes phone calls from Ghislaine Maxwell to schedule appointments, during which Maxwell would mention she and Jeffrey Epstein were 'flying in' from out of town.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018699.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on the logistics of scheduling massage appointments at Jeffrey Epstein's house. Carolyn testifies that for the first year or two, Ghislaine Maxwell would call to schedule appointments, after which Sarah Kellen or Carolyn herself would handle the scheduling. Carolyn also notes that even after Sarah took over scheduling, Maxwell was still seen at Epstein's house, specifically in an office area off the kitchen.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018698.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn, who identifies a photograph of herself (Government Exhibit 104) taken when she was 14 years old, confirming it depicts how she looked when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house. The court admits the photograph under seal to protect the witness's anonymity.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018688.jpg

This page is a transcript from the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Carolyn testifies about meeting a neighbor named Shawn in West Palm Beach and dating him when she was 13 and he was 17. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) introduces Government Exhibit 20 containing Shawn's full name, which is admitted under seal to protect his identity.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018682.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca). The conversation focuses on scheduling the next witness, whose testimony is expected to extend past the lunch break, and the potential need to call a witness out of order. The judge agrees to the proposed flexibility before preparing to bring the jury into the courtroom.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018681.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court excuses a witness, Mr. Flatley, after his recross-examination. After a brief exchange with government counsel, Ms. Pomerantz, the court announces a recess.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018680.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the end of the recross-examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley, who confirms that an internet-connected computer could automatically populate emails. After attorney Ms. Pomerantz concludes her questions, the judge excuses Mr. Flatley and announces a 15-minute mid-morning break for the jury.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018679.jpg

This is a transcript page from the trial USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz questions witness Mr. Flatley confirming that all emails in 'Government Exhibit 54' came from the account 'gmax1@mindspring.com'. Subsequently, Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins recross-examination, asking technical questions about how email clients (like Outlook) automatically refresh data from servers when connected to the internet.

Court transcript (redirect and recross examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018678.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley by attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a specific computer, establishing that Ghislaine Maxwell held the only non-default user account on the device. The defense attorney attempts to establish doubt about who physically accessed the computer, suggesting it could have been in a common area (like a kitchen) and used by others via Maxwell's logged-in account.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018677.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The questioning focuses on the creation of a document, attempting to cast doubt on whether a person named 'gmax' could have created it by highlighting that her physical location on January 29, 2002, might differ from the computer's location. The witness, Flatley, admits to not knowing who created the document or where the computer was located.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018673.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The questioning attorney establishes that the witness does not know the physical location of a desktop computer at the time certain exhibits were created, suggesting it could have been in Florida, New York, or elsewhere. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, makes two objections during this line of questioning, both of which are overruled by the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018671.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Flatley. The testimony focuses on the forensic examination of a hard drive, confirming it originated from a desktop computer rather than a laptop, and establishing that the drive examined was a 'clone' of another hard drive. An objection regarding the transport of desktops on airplanes was sustained by the court.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018668.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) featuring the testimony of a Mr. Flatley. Ms. Pomerantz concludes her questioning after Flatley reads a statement describing Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as 'great partners' and 'best of friends' who complement each other well. Ms. Menninger then begins cross-examination, establishing that a hard drive (Exhibit GX54) was found in Mr. Epstein's New York home.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018664.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the metadata (creation, save, and print dates in September 2002) and titles of specific evidence documents. The documents discussed are titled 'PB New Shampoo and Massage Products' (Exhibit 420) and 'Palm Beach House Workers' (Exhibit 418R), linking the evidence to operations at a Palm Beach residence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018662.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Flatley. Flatley confirms that specific government exhibits, identified as Microsoft Word documents, were saved within the documents folder of a Windows computer user account named 'Ghislaine'. The testimony includes a legal objection from Ms. Menninger regarding the scope of the questioning, which was overruled by the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018661.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley, by attorney Ms. Pomerantz regarding Government Exhibits 420B, 421B, and 422B. After the witness affirms their accuracy, the exhibits are admitted into evidence by the court without objection from opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018660.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley, who identifies and authenticates Government Exhibits 420, 421, and 422. Following his testimony and with no objection from the opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018659.jpg

This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding the review of evidence using forensic software. During the proceedings, Government Exhibit 418B is admitted without objection from Ms. Menninger, and Exhibits 420, 421, and 422 are presented for identification.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018658.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) is questioning a witness named Mr. Flatley regarding Government Exhibit 418B, which contains the metadata properties for Exhibit 418. The court also admits Exhibit 418 under seal due to the presence of third-party telephone numbers.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018655.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The testimony focuses on an email exchange from May 25, 2001, sent by 'Sally' to 'Ms. Maxwell' regarding a 'PB manual' (likely Palm Beach manual) and a conversation with 'John'.

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