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-00014901.jpg

This document is page 25 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness identified as Rocchio by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The witness describes their professional responsibilities as the president-elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology within the American Psychological Association.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014896.jpg

This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on 01/15/25. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the witness's academic credentials at Brown University and their expertise in traumatic stress and childhood trauma. During the testimony, Government Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014894.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The witness testifies about their career experience in treating victims of childhood sexual abuse, stating they have worked with individuals aged 13 and up but currently focus on adults (18+) in both their clinical and forensic practices. The court interjects to clarify the distinction between these two areas of the witness's work.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014883.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a government witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The transcript includes the witness being sworn in and receiving procedural instructions from the judge regarding microphone usage before the questioning commences.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014881.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The court discusses upcoming trial dates with counsel, proposing a final pretrial conference for November 23rd and discussing the start of voir dire on November 16th. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz (for the government) and Ms. Sternheim agree to the proposals, with Ms. Sternheim asking for a specific start time for the voir dire.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg

This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014878.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a pretrial conference in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. Counsel for the government and for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, state their appearances for the record. The judge outlines the case schedule, noting that jury selection began on November 4th and the trial is set to commence on November 29th, and sets the agenda to address the defendant's motions to exclude evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg

This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014835.jpg

This document is page 88 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the courtroom regarding sentencing guidelines, stating the applicable range is 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. The Judge outlines the legal requirements under *Booker* and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) for determining a sentence that is 'sufficient, but no greater than necessary.'

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014834.jpg

This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014829.jpg

This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The defense attorney argues for a lighter sentence based on 3553(a) factors, citing Maxwell's traumatic childhood marked by her brother's coma and death, and her 'narcissistic, brutish' father. The defense also attempts to mitigate her culpability by characterizing Jeffrey Epstein as 'controlling, demanding, [and] manipulative,' claiming he cast a deceptive shadow over her adulthood.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014828.jpg

This document is page 81 of a court transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is disproportionate and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim explicitly argues that Jeffrey Epstein was 'far more culpable' than Maxwell, yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014802.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge (The Court), Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim regarding the order of statements for an upcoming session, specifically coordinating when victims and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, will speak. The court sets the order as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, before taking a lunch recess until 1:00 PM.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014800.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's decision to overrule an objection regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, financial assets. The judge asserts that an uncertain asset, along with a $10 million bequest from Epstein, must be considered when determining her ability to pay a fine, as she has failed to prove otherwise. The transcript highlights the court's view of Maxwell's finances as a 'moving target'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014799.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a 'bequest' listed in the defendant's financial affidavit should not be considered an asset for the purpose of calculating fines because the source estate is in bankruptcy and paying out victims' claims, making the asset 'tenuous.' The Court questions the status of the bequest and asks Ms. Moe (likely the prosecution) for a response.

Court transcript (united states district court, southern district of new york)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014798.jpg

This document is page 51 of a court transcript from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The text details a recruitment chain involving the defendant, Virginia [Giuffre], Carolyn, and Melissa, noting that Melissa's name appears in the defendant's 'little black book.' The court also discusses financial fines, specifically mentioning the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein as part of her assets.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014797.jpg

This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge addresses objections from the defense regarding the application of the 2003 versus 2004 guidelines and an objection from the government that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. The judge explains the legal reasoning, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and the precedent set in Peugh v. United States, to determine which guidelines are applicable.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg

This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014780.jpg

This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case of USA v. Maxwell. The defense argues against a 'leadership enhancement' for sentencing, claiming trial testimony proves Sarah Kellen was Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, not Ghislaine Maxwell's, citing witnesses Larry Visoski and Cimberly Espinosa. Prosecutor Ms. Moe rebuts by citing victim Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell was present at the Palm Beach residence even when Kellen took over scheduling massages.

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

DOJ-OGR-00014778.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role ('lady of the house') over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records to prove they were close associates of Jeffrey Epstein simultaneously. The defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) disputes the government's legal interpretation regarding the supervision of criminal participants.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014777.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that Sarah Kellen was a 'criminal participant' subordinate to Maxwell in the conspiracy hierarchy, taking over tasks like scheduling victims so that Maxwell could move higher up in the leadership structure. The Judge questions the specific evidence proving Maxwell's supervision over Kellen.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014776.jpg

This document is page 29 of a court transcript from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The discussion focuses on sentencing guidelines, specifically whether Maxwell acted as an 'organizer or leader' of criminal activity. The government attorney (Ms. Moe) argues that Maxwell held a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen, identifying Kellen as a 'criminally responsible participant' to justify the sentencing enhancement.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014775.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, capturing a legal argument about evidence. A defense attorney argues that a helicopter purchase and testimony from Larry Visoski about holding assets for Mr. Epstein are not proof of their client's continued involvement in a conspiracy. In response, prosecutor Ms. Moe contends that this financial evidence was specifically offered to prove the defendant remained a 'close associate' of Epstein for many years, contradicting the defense's claim that she had 'moved on'.

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