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-00017817.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. Jane testifies about the emotional significance of compensation she received for past abuse, stating she wishes she never received the money and that it was a means to cover expenses and attempt to move on. She confirms she has no financial stake in the outcome of the current trial and expresses hope for closure.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017816.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' Jane testifies about a specific memory where her relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell changed from 'casual' to sexual, specifically recalling the first time she was unclothed with both Maxwell and Epstein. The prosecutor asks about her age at the time (14-16) and introduces the topic of an award Jane received from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017812.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the redirect examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The testimony focuses on Jane's height (five-foot-four), grade level (eighth grade), and potential inaccuracies ('fibbing') in applications submitted in 1995 for summer camp and the Professional Children's School.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017811.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on personal information from a summer camp application (height, weight, grade) and her attendance at Interlochen the following year. The transcript also records procedural matters, including an attorney's request for the jury to view a sealed piece of evidence, Defendant's Exhibit J-4.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017807.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane,' discusses a past phone conversation with a reporter where she was careful not to reveal her name. She also testifies about how she hired her attorney, Robert Glassman, noting that he was a friend of her husband's best friend.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017805.jpg

This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane explains to the jury that she spoke to a reporter against her will because he "basically blackmailed" her. The reporter allegedly threatened to publish her name, which he claimed was in unredacted court documents and "Epstein's little black book."

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017797.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to questioning by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, on the grounds of relevance and personal knowledge. The Court overrules the objection and admits Defendant's Exhibit J-15 into evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017795.jpg

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's recollection of interrogatories and answers given under oath in a previous civil case filed in June 2020. The witness denies recalling answering questions under oath or knowing what her lawyer wrote, but acknowledges filing the lawsuit.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017793.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on her recollection of attending Mike Wallace's 80th birthday party, which the questioner suggests occurred in May 1998. Jane confirms she sang "Happy Birthday" but is unsure of other details, while her attorney, Ms. Moe, makes several successful objections.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017791.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on establishing Jane's exact age (13 vs 14) when she first met Jeffrey Epstein, referencing prior statements made to the government and court filings.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017786.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding a document identified as Government Exhibit 761. Jane acknowledges writing the document and clarifies that during her senior year she had a manager, not an agent, as suggested by the questioning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017784.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning aims to define the profession of an actor, establishing that they portray fictional characters for a living using their voice, body, and lines written by others. The transcript also includes an objection from another attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding a court exhibit, which the judge agrees to review.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017776.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by a lawyer, Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on whether Jane's cooperation with the government was motivated by potential financial gain from civil litigation against the Estate of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as well as a victims' compensation fund. The transcript also captures procedural discussions between the lawyers and the Court regarding the timing of witnesses.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017775.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a procedural discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Sternheim, Menninger). The conversation focuses on the next witness, identified as Matt, and addresses how potential evidentiary issues, such as the introduction of prior consistent statements, will be handled. An attorney also requests permission to ask a leading question under Rule 611(c).

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017774.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. It details a sidebar or legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger regarding the specific wording of a cross-examination question for a witness identified as 'Jane.' The discussion focuses on whether the witness believed her testimony would aid her in civil litigation or the 'victims' comp fund.'

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

DOJ-OGR-00017772.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (likely a criminal trial) where attorneys and the judge are discussing the phrasing of a question regarding a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on differentiating between Jane's understanding at the time she began cooperating with the government versus her current testimony, specifically concerning her financial stake and resolved civil matters.

Court transcript page
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017771.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The central topic is a legal argument concerning the waiver of attorney-client privilege, specifically whether a client's disclosure to the government constitutes a waiver. The judge directs the attorneys to submit a formal brief on the waiver issue.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017770.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a sidebar or legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge regarding the admissibility of a line of questioning for a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on whether questions about what Jane was told regarding her testimony's impact on a civil case are proper for impeaching the credibility of the prosecutors.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017769.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a portion of the privilege was waived, while another, Ms. Moe, states she is unprepared to respond. The judge ultimately rules that the issue is too complex to be decided on the spot and requires the parties to submit formal legal briefs on the matter.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg

This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a sidebar or legal argument regarding witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the witness may be motivated to testify in the criminal trial to increase a financial payout in a separate civil case. The Judge ('The Court') expresses concern that questioning the witness about communications with her lawyer regarding this strategy would violate attorney-client privilege and rules to limit the scope of questioning on 401/403 grounds.

Court transcript (criminal case)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017767.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe (Defense), and Ms. Menninger (Government) regarding the scope of cross-examination for a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask if Jane is aware that her attorney told the government about her expectations for financial compensation in civil litigation, and whether such questions violate attorney-client privilege or are relevant to her credibility and bias.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017766.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane.' Ms. Menninger attempts to question Jane about her knowledge of statements her lawyer made to the government regarding how her testimony might impact civil litigation. Ms. Moe (Jane's counsel) objects, arguing that this line of questioning is an attempt to bypass attorney-client privilege and does not constitute valid impeachment.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017765.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask Jane if she believes her testimony in the criminal trial will assist her in a separate civil litigation recovery, and involves arguments regarding attorney-client privilege waivers when information is disclosed to the government.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017764.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The discussion centers on whether Ms. Menninger can question a witness, Jane, about her potential expectation of receiving a higher financial payout in a related civil case as a result of her testimony in the current criminal proceeding. The attorneys and the court explore the relevance of this line of questioning, touching upon privileged communications and the timeline of a victims' compensation fund.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017762.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that attorney-client privilege was waived because a communication was shared with the government. In response, attorney Ms. Moe suggests questioning the witness about her motives and potential bias related to a civil case, as a way to proceed without directly challenging the privileged communication.

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

Unknown question regarding instructions

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Jury sent a note; Judge is responding by referring them to instruction number 21.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Note

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

So I received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the instruction.

Court instruction
N/A
Communication Source

Impartiality

From: THE COURT
To: Juror No. 50

Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.

Court examination
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on charges

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Indicated confusion regarding Count Four and jurisdiction.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Supplemental Instruction for Count Four

From: the defense
To: THE COURT

Proposed language clarifying that intent must relate to activity within New York state.

Proposed instruction
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 270

From: Government officials
To: THE COURT

States that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course.

Response
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 191

From: Boies Schiller Flexner...
To: THE COURT

Regarding the subpoena served on BSF.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Question regarding liability and facts

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

A note posing a question that led to debate over accomplice liability and flight arrangements.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Instructions

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Requesting instruction on 'purpose of travel' and arguing lack of evidence for return flight arrangement.

Legal argument/request
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection / Voir Dire

From: THE COURT
To: juror

The Court questions a juror about their exposure to case information, availability for a six-week trial starting Nov 29, and familiarity with lists of names and entities involved in the case.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Screening

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Document Juror 50 is seeking a copy of.

Jury questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Note

From: Jury Foreperson
To: THE COURT

A note signed by the foreperson that attorneys are discussing; requires redaction of signature.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 46

From: Government officials
To: THE COURT

Publicly available letter discussing the issue.

Docketed letter
N/A
Communication Source

Regarding subpoena

From: Boies Schiller Flexner...
To: THE COURT

Referenced as Dkt. No. 191, mentioning the request for a victim's diary.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection

From: Juror No. 50
To: THE COURT

False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.

Questionnaire/testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Motion to Unseal

From: Dag
To: THE COURT

A 3.5 page motion to unseal grand jury materials filed without supporting docs.

Legal motion
N/A
Communication Source

Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. / Maxwell Br.

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Arguments regarding Juror 50's bias.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Format inquiry

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Missing Jurors

From: Ms. Comey
To: THE COURT

Asking if the Court has attempted to call the missing jurors.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to intervene

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Initial Bail Hearing

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Proffer that testimony would be corroborated by 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence'.

Transcript
N/A
Communication Source

Request for Evidence

From: Jury/Foreperson
To: THE COURT

"We would like the FBI deposition 3505-005 referred to by the defense during the cross-examination of Carolyn."

Jury note/request
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Screening

From: THE COURT
To: Juror No. 50

Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.

Questionnaire/interview
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Documents containing answers regarding prior experience with sexual assault.

Questionnaire
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