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-00020907.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg

This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020892.jpg

This document is a transcript page (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings, indicated by 'M38TMAX1') regarding 'Juror 50'. The Court grants Juror 50 'use immunity' following an assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges, protecting them from prosecution based on their testimony provided they do not commit perjury. The Court also explicitly instructs the juror not to reveal information regarding jury deliberations or thought processes during the trial.

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

DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020857.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) while the jury is not present. The discussion centers on a letter submitted by the defense overnight, which the judge just received. Ms. Moe argues that the letter merely repeats a legal argument about jury instructions that the defense made the previous day and which the Court had already considered and rejected.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.

Court transcript / legal filing (appeal appendix)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg

This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020843.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020842.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 02/28/2023. It features a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger before a Judge regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of 'transportation' for illegal sexual activity. The discussion specifically focuses on a flight to New Mexico involving a victim referred to as 'Jane' and whether the intent of that specific travel leg was for sexual activity.

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

DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg

This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.

Court transcript / appeal appendix
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020777.jpg

This document is page 18 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Court rejects arguments regarding missing witnesses, specifically noting that potential testimony from the Palm Beach investigation or Epstein himself would likely not have been credible or exculpatory. The Court also rules that pretrial publicity and delays in prosecution have not caused substantial prejudice to Maxwell's right to a fair trial.

Court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019061.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief procedural exchange between the judge (THE COURT) and Ms. Comey about bringing the jury and a witness, identified as Rodgers, into the courtroom. After Ms. Comey agrees to the procedure, the judge gives the order to proceed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019060.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a moment during a trial where the judge calls for a mid-afternoon break. The cross-examination of witness Rodgers by defense attorney Everdell is paused, and the jury and witness are dismissed. The attorneys for the government (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) confirm they have no immediate matters to discuss, with Mr. Everdell noting he is less than halfway through his questioning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019044.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on communications in the 2000s, specifically confirming that the witness used cell phones to communicate about flights with a Mr. Visoski and that they had Sarah Kellen's number programmed in their phone. The court briefly interrupts to admonish the speakers for talking over one another.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019042.jpg

A transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). The defense attorney attempts to refresh Rodgers' recollection using a document regarding Sarah Kellen taking over as Jeffrey Epstein's primary assistant in late 2001. There is some confusion regarding which specific page and paragraph the witness should be reading.

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

DOJ-OGR-00019034.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The witness confirms they were never given any rules about mingling with passengers or interacting with other pilots and staff associated with Mr. Epstein. The transcript also briefly discusses the logistics of using the restroom on a Gulfstream aircraft during flights to Europe.

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