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-00017761.jpg

This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, requests permission from the judge to question a witness about communications she may have had with her own attorney regarding cooperation with the government and testifying at the trial. The judge clarifies the precise wording of the question to be posed to the witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017760.jpg

This document is page 151 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between Ms. Menninger and the Court regarding a proffer and a 40-minute timeline, immediately followed by a luncheon recess. The header indicates the proceedings involved the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a settlement agreement. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that the document is relevant to show the amount of money a witness named Jane received, while the opposing counsel and the Court discuss whether the document's complex legal language would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The Court compares the document's complexity to other legal agreements, like cooperation agreements, that are regularly shown to juries.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017757.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of 'Exhibit J-40'. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, moves to admit the document, which concerns a prior civil settlement involving the witness, Jane, under seal. Opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, objects on legal grounds, arguing the information is already on record. The judge postpones the discussion until after a lunch break.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017754.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 participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, including the signing and submission of a claim form with her lawyer's help. The questioner also probes her knowledge of a civil complaint against Ghislaine and whether her lawyer sent Ghislaine a letter demanding money, which the witness denies knowing about.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017753.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's civil lawsuits filed in January 2020 against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's estate with the assistance of attorney Mr. Glassman.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017752.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on the financial support she provided to her mother, who lived with her, and a conversation she had with her attorney, Mr. Glassman, about cooperating in a criminal case after hiring him in September 2019. An objection by Ms. Moe to a question about this conversation was sustained by the court.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017745.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on Jane's communications regarding the Epstein case, specifically confirming that she spoke with Stan Pottinger, her ex-boyfriend Matt, and some family members. The defense attorney attempts to establish that her knowledge of the Epstein case is influenced by these conversations and press coverage.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017741.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on her hiring of a personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman, on September 3, 2019, executed via a contingent fee contract (Exhibit J-14). The defense attempts to ask about Glassman's advertising regarding large verdicts, but an objection regarding hearsay is sustained.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017735.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a legal cross-examination, likely a deposition or court testimony, dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as Jane, is questioned about commercial flights paid for by an unidentified male, sending a photograph with a note ('Thanks for rocking my world') to Epstein when she was 19, and her mother's alleged involvement in making her send it. The testimony also references exhibits and the lack of dates on photographs.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017727.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) depicting a sidebar conference during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. Prosecutor Ms. Moe objects to defense questions regarding investigative techniques (specifically showing photographs), citing a previously granted motion in limine. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger attempts to complain about the excessive number of objections, but the Court dismisses the concern, stating the record is clear.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017713.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 referred to as 'Jane.' Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane about a prior interview with the government, specifically regarding whether Jane remembered any specific abuse occurring during trips to New Mexico. The witness states she does not recall making the statements presented to her, and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) objects to the form of the questioning.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017712.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Jane about her recollection of an alleged abuse incident in New Mexico and her prior statements to the government. Jane repeatedly states that she does not recall the events or making the statements in question.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017710.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Jane about a trip she took on "Epstein's plane" to New Mexico and what she previously told "the government" about being ignored on that trip. Jane repeatedly responds that she does not recall the events or her prior statements, leading to objections and a request for clarification from the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017709.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a discrepancy in her prior statements to the government regarding a trip to New York with Maxwell and Epstein at age 14, specifically about seeing the Broadway show 'The Lion King,' which did not premiere until she was 17. The transcript reveals communications between the government and Jane occurred through her legal representatives, including a Mr. Glassman.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017708.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. A witness identified as 'Jane' is being cross-examined about her recollection of attending 'The Lion King' on Broadway with Jeffrey Epstein. Jane confirms that they saw the show (not the movie), sat in mezzanine seats, and that Epstein bragged about securing the seats because he knew the director.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017705.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies in her prior statements to the government about a trip to New York with Epstein and Maxwell, specifically a trip to see 'The Lion King'. The witness's attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, which is overruled by the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017703.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, recording the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane about a statement she made to the government regarding being flown to New York by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to see 'The Lion King'. The proceedings are briefly interrupted when a juror suffers a coughing fit, causing a recess.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017701.jpg

This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies in her story, specifically regarding a trip she took to New York with Ghislaine and Epstein at age 14 to see 'The Lion King'. The questioner highlights a discrepancy between her current testimony and what she initially told the government in a meeting in September 2019, particularly concerning whether anything inappropriate occurred on that trip.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017700.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' by attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on clarifying Jane's memory regarding statements made to the FBI and the government in November 2019 and April 2020. Specifically, Jane confirms reporting that she was abused '90 percent of the time' she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017699.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about incidents in New York involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and despite objections from another attorney, Jane confirms that she did tell the government about at least one such incident.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017697.jpg

This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is cross-examining a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding inconsistencies between her current testimony and notes taken by the government during interviews in September 2019 and February 2020. Jane disputes the accuracy of the government's notes regarding her 'first trip to New York,' stating she was never recorded and the notes are 'out of sequence and incorrect.'

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

DOJ-OGR-00017696.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between her current testimony and prior statements made to the government in 2019 regarding a trip to New York at age 14 where she allegedly met Epstein. Jane denies the accuracy of the statements being presented, and her counsel, Ms. Moe, objects to the line of questioning, with the court sustaining the objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017694.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 details a procedural discussion between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a juror's question about a 'letter of recommendation' and 'Interlochen applications' contained in evidence binders. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the court instructs Ms. Menninger to resume her cross-examination of the witness identified as 'Jane'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017693.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They discuss a legal point concerning "Rule 408" and a previous motion to quash, after which Ms. Moe raises an issue of "brief anonymity," prompting the judge to call for a sidebar discussion. The transcript is part of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane.

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