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.

EFTA00027239.pdf

This document is an internal email chain from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated August 6-7, 2019, discussing Jeffrey Epstein's historical state plea transcript. An Assistant U.S. Attorney highlights specific quotes from the plea hearing where the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida was detailed, explicitly noting that federal prosecutors agreed not to prosecute Epstein federally in SDFL if he completed probation. The email also notes that SDFL representatives were present in court during the plea.

Email chain
2025-12-25
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00030313.tif

This document is a page from a court transcript dated May 22, 2009, from case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM. It details a discussion between the Court, the Defendant, and Ms. Belohlavek concerning the conditions of the Defendant's sentence, specifically regarding contact with victims and the completion of a sex offender program, particularly for victims under 18.

Court transcript / docket entry
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018381.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. During a direct examination, a witness named Kate testifies that Maxwell told her Jeffrey Epstein "needed massages all the time" and that it was "very difficult to keep up." Immediately following this conversation, Kate states that Maxwell led her upstairs to a room containing a massage table.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018372.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Kate. The testimony establishes that Kate met Maxwell in Paris when Kate was approximately 17 years old, exchanged phone numbers, and was subsequently invited by Maxwell to her house for tea a few weeks later. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, also introduces a photograph (GX109) taken in the witness's backyard.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018368.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 'Kate,' regarding the admission of her driver's license (Government Exhibit 18) under seal to protect her anonymity. Kate testifies that she finished 'some high school' and currently works with women suffering from trauma and substance use disorder.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018367.jpg

Transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Witness 'Kate' is under direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz. Kate identifies Government Exhibit 16 as her birth certificate. The prosecution then moves to discuss Government Exhibit 18, prompting the Judge to instruct the jury to close their binders temporarily until the evidence is admitted.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018366.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate' to protect her privacy. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, requests the jury look at Government Exhibit 16, which is noted as being under seal.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018361.jpg

This document is a single page (page 24 of 261) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, relating to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange where the Court takes a pause, confirms that attorney Mr. Rohrbach is ready, and then orders the jury to be brought in.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018360.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a legal argument regarding the redaction of documents to protect the identity of a person referred to as 'Jane' from being cross-referenced with public records on PACER. The Judge instructs the attorneys (Ms. Moe and Mr. Rohrbach) to find a middle ground that protects witness privacy while acknowledging facts already in the public trial transcript before the jury enters.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018359.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Moe regarding the sealing and redaction of exhibits marked J8 and J9. Ms. Menninger argues for specific redactions to protect plaintiffs' identities while keeping the bulk of the document public, citing 'Lugash' precedent. The Court orders the exhibits temporarily sealed while the parties confer on the specific redactions.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018356.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and the judge. Attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, who is present in the courtroom. Sternheim contends that the attorney's role in the 'Epstein Fund' and the fact that he wrote a book about the witness's story are pertinent facts for the jury to consider during cross-examination.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018354.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. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018352.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey) and the judge. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically clarifying which numbered massage room photos are to be admitted as evidence with redactions. Mr. Everdell also informs the court that the defense and the government have reached an agreement on a testimonial stipulation for a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018350.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Court. The conversation centers on the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's residence without submitting the photos as evidence. The Court reserves judgment on the admission of any photo exhibits but indicates it finds the proposed line of questioning acceptable.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018343.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on August 10, 2022, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. The judge is discussing the admissibility of photographs taken in 2019 of Epstein's New York apartment, which the government wants to use to corroborate the 1994 testimony of a witness named "Jane". The judge outlines the legal reasoning for determining the relevance and potential prejudice of such evidence, particularly the difference between photos of fixed structures versus movable objects.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018339.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge is addressing a government request regarding the testimony of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate.' The Judge notes that while Kate alleges sexual conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, she was over the age of consent at the time and is not a victim of the specific crimes charged in this indictment. However, her testimony is deemed relevant to Mann Act counts and 404(b) evidence. The Judge rules that her testimony regarding sexual details will be limited to avoid prejudice and that the jury will be instructed that the Court prohibited asking for those specific details.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018334.jpg

This page is a transcript from a court hearing filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor (Ms. Comey), and Defense (Mr. Everdell) are discussing the timeline for redacting and releasing photographs and videos to the public. The Judge emphasizes the need to release as much information to the public as possible while protecting the privacy of those testifying under pseudonyms.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018332.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge dismisses a witness, Mr. Dawson, for the weekend, stipulating that he may only have logistical contact with the government as he is still under cross-examination. The judge and counsel then discuss and set a filing schedule for briefs related to the next witness, Maguire, who is scheduled to testify the following Monday.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018324.jpg

This document is a single page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a ruling by the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Dawson, allowing a line of questioning to proceed by stating the issue is already relevant and a prior objection was not made.

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

Fairness and impartiality

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Replied by rote in the affirmative regarding fairness; provided explanations for incorrect questionnaire answers.

Testimony/inquiry
N/A
Communication Source

Briefing Schedule

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Proposal to write a letter proposing a schedule after conferring.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Question regarding Count Four and the second element.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 completed a questionnaire regarding his background.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Defendant's primary sentencing submission

From: defense
To: THE COURT

Submission reviewed by the court

Submission
N/A
Communication Source

Cross-examination procedure

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.

Procedural discussion
N/A
Communication Source

Argument regarding travel purpose

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Jury instructions query

From: THE COURT
To: Mr. Everdell

Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification of legal standard

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Schedule

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Note stating the jury is ready to leave at 5:30.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Deliberation Instructions

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

Verbal instructions regarding adjournment, prohibition on outside communication, and schedule for the following morning.

Instruction
N/A
Communication Source

State of Arizona's argument

From: Attorney General
To: THE COURT

Argued presence at the scene was essential but conceded lack of proof of intent to kill.

Oral argument
N/A
Communication Source

Defense Rebuttal

From: Narrator
To: THE COURT

Argued brothers were not present, sent to get water, and lacked intent.

Oral argument (rebuttal)
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50's responses during jury selection, specifically regarding prior experience with sexual assault.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Juror 50 Mem.

From: Juror 50's counsel
To: THE COURT

States Juror 50 does not recall answering questions regarding sexual assault.

Legal memorandum
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 rushed through the questionnaire and provided inaccurate answers regarding prior experiences.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Assessment of Bias

From: THE COURT
To: Juror 50

The Court asked Juror 50 questions regarding prior sexual abuse and ability to be impartial.

Hearing
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 568

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Regarding press outlets and Juror 50's interviews; requested a hearing.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 569

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 570

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Schedule

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Counsel expresses concern that the jury might rush to judgment to avoid returning in January if the schedule bumps up against the Christmas holiday.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Scheduling Concerns

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Open issues

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Court expects to hear from government by letter by 2:00.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Objection/Questions

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Questions posed by defense counsel regarding Juror 50.

Letter submission
N/A
Communication Source

Request for items and definitions

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Request for Post-Its, paperboard, highlighters, 'Matt's transcript', and a definition of 'enticement'.

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