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-00018322.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a cross-examination of a witness named Dawson by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to a question about a residence, leading Mr. Everdell to request a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement by a prior witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018320.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of Sergeant Dawson by Ms. Comey regarding Government Exhibits 1, 3, and 4, which the witness identifies as message books found during a search warrant. The Judge interrupts briefly to ask the witness to remove their mask and speak closer to the microphone.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018313.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Mr. Parkinson, who is excused by the court to catch a flight. Subsequently, the government (represented by Ms. Comey) calls Sergeant Michael Dawson as a witness, who is sworn in and begins his direct examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018310.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining witness Mr. Parkinson regarding photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 234 and 245) which depict Jeffrey Epstein's desk and bookcase shelves. The exhibits are noted as being 'under seal'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018309.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. An attorney questions Parkinson about Government Exhibits 235 and 292, establishing that photographs of a "windy staircase" do not show any pictures on the adjacent wall. The proceedings also involve a discussion among attorneys and the judge about another piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 234, which is confirmed to be sealed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018308.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a cross-examination involving 'Parkinson,' dated August 10, 2022. The discussion centers on a diagram of a house, specifically its foyer and staircase. Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibits 235 and 292, which the Court approves, indicating a transition in the presentation of evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018303.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on the floor plan of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence, specifically identifying a 'staff' room located near the kitchen, which is identified in Government Exhibit 238 as a small office. Attorneys Everdell and Comey discuss the admissibility of Exhibit 238 with the Judge.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018302.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning confirms that a house Parkinson had previously searched was undergoing renovations at the time, evidenced by carpet samples, floor plans, and architectural drawings. The proceedings also involve referencing 'Government Exhibit 298' for the witness and jury to view.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018296.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 named Parkinson (likely a police officer) by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony covers Parkinson's early interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a burglary investigation in October 2003 and casual encounters seeing Epstein jogging in Palm Beach. It concludes by introducing the topic of a search warrant executed on October 20, 2005.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018295.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about a visit of under four hours to a residence on October 5, 2003, to speak with Mr. Epstein, and denies knowing or seeing Ghislaine Maxwell there. An attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to a question about a burglar on the grounds of relevance and hearsay.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018293.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on a past meeting between Parkinson and Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein's house, specifically in his main office. They discuss a burglary incident where Epstein alleged that cash was stolen from a bag near his desk.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018287.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 records the admission of 'Exhibit 51' without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey subsequently requests that Detective Byrne come forward to set up and publish the exhibit for the jury.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018286.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibit 51 as a massage table that he personally seized from a bathroom at 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully offers the table into evidence without objection from Mr. Everdell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018284.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. Witness Parkinson is being questioned by Ms. Comey regarding a photograph (Government Exhibit 285) showing a desktop in a bathroom anteroom at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibit is admitted under seal to protect a party's interests, preventing the witness from reading specific writing on the picture aloud in open court.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018282.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by Ms. Comey. The proceedings involve directing jurors to view Government Exhibits 282, 286, and 287 in their binders, followed by the presentation of Exhibits 283 and 284 on a screen, which the witness identifies as photographs of a room on the second floor, north side of a property.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018280.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated August 10, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The testimony centers on the identification of photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 278, 281, 282, 286, and 287) depicting the interior of a property, specifically mentioning a 'white hassock,' 'pink three-cushioned couch,' and the 'second floor.' The Judge intervenes briefly to admit evidence and instruct the witness to speak into the microphone.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018279.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Comey questions a witness, Mr. Parkinson, about an exhibit, Government 278. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibit as a fair and accurate photograph of the shower room at 358 El Brillo Way as it looked on October 20, 2005, after which Ms. Comey offers it into evidence without objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018278.jpg

This document is page 177 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically 'school costumes' and photographs thereof. The Judge rules that a foundation must be laid through a witness, suggesting Special Agent Maguire for this purpose. Following the ruling, the jury is recalled and a witness named Mr. Parkinson takes the stand.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal dispute where prosecutors Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request to brief an issue regarding photographic evidence, accusing the defense of 'sandbagging' by objecting late. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell denies the accusation, while the Judge notes a 'factual disjointedness' regarding the evidence.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018274.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'massage room' inside a residence. The Judge sustains an objection to the photos because they were taken over 20 years after the events described by a witness, and depict 'highly mobile items' that may not accurately reflect the room's state at the relevant time.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018273.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring a legal argument between an attorney (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs. The attorney argues the photos corroborate a witness's 'blind description' of a residence's interior. The Judge expresses skepticism due to the significant passage of time (15-20 years) and the fact that the photos may depict 'movable items' rather than permanent structures.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018272.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'New York house' (implied to be Epstein's). The prosecution argues the photos corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' who described specific decor (nude artwork, animal decorations, and a red massage room) present during her visits between 1994 and her early twenties.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018271.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. The dialogue involves the Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell discussing procedural matters regarding the sealing of documents and objections to specific evidence (the '900 series' exhibits). Mr. Everdell notes that these objections relate to a search conducted in 2019 and will become relevant when Agent Maguire testifies to introduce the exhibits.

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

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