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-00018821.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on an intake interview from September 2005 and a signed document from October 2005, specifically regarding the witness's reported use of benzodiazepines. The witness repeatedly challenges the attorney on the relevance of these 2005 documents to the 2002-2003 timeframe originally being discussed.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018820.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's history of substance use, including taking Xanax for anxiety, drinking and smoking marijuana at age 13, and using benzodiazepines frequently between 2002 and 2003.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018819.jpg

This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Carolyn about alleged substance abuse during the 2002-2003 timeframe and at age 13. Carolyn denies abusing multiple substances in the 2002-2003 timeframe but admits to smoking marijuana at age 13.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018818.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to direct Carolyn to specific passages in a prior deposition, leading to procedural clarifications from the judge and an objection from another attorney, Ms. Comey. The transcript captures the formal and often disjointed process of presenting evidence in a legal setting.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018817.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a moment after a recess where the judge and attorneys prepare for a witness, and the judge then addresses the jury to apologize for a delay and inform them of upcoming scheduling changes, including days off due to a personal conflict and the Christmas holiday.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018816.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about a witness's amended testimony. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, highlights that the witness later added they were transported in a private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein, arguing this change in memory is significant. The judge acknowledges the inconsistency, after which other attorneys discuss procedural matters like taking a break and the time remaining for cross-examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018815.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. The text captures a legal debate between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the admissibility of specific testimony or evidence (items 20 and 21). The discussion focuses on whether seeing a female naked in a massage room before Jeffrey Epstein entered constitutes 'lewd and lascivious conduct' or mere nudity.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018814.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and the judge. They are debating inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, specifically regarding the timeframe of payments she allegedly received from Mr. Epstein and whether her testimony described sexual contact or merely being seen naked in a massage room. The judge ultimately suggests checking the official transcript to resolve the dispute.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018813.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. They are discussing the admissibility of specific questions (16 and 17) to be asked during a cross-examination, which concern visits to Mr. Epstein's home and any financial compensation received. The judge sustains an objection but ultimately indicates a willingness to allow the questions for a person identified as Ms. Comey.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018812.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to introduce paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen as impeachment evidence, but the Court sustains the objection. The judge rules the paragraphs inadmissible, distinguishing them from prior evidence because they do not mention Ms. Maxwell or other unnamed employees.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018811.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey before a judge. The discussion centers on whether a complaint's allegations are limited to a period ending in August 2003, which Mr. Pagliuca asserts is inconsistent with testimony. Ms. Comey counters that the complaint is consistent and suggests how to question the witness, Carolyn, on the matter.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018809.jpg

This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The judge sustains a series of objections from Mr. Pagliuca related to specific numbered paragraphs (57, 63, 69, 75, 81, 87, 93) of testimony or evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, presided over by a judge. The discussion centers on whether a witness's testimony about the frequency of an act (up to four times a week) is inconsistent with a complaint stating it occurred twice a month. The attorneys debate the significance of the time frame and the conflicting frequencies mentioned in the testimony versus the complaint.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018804.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination regarding a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court about inconsistencies in testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting a lack of allegations regarding sexual penetration versus fondling. The Judge clarifies which paragraph of the legal document is being discussed (moving from 33 to 39) before turning to prosecutor Ms. Comey.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. They are discussing the consistency of testimony from a witness named Carolyn, specifically focusing on a discrepancy in the date of an incident. The judge points out that a complaint states the incident occurred in 2002, while Carolyn's testimony places it in 2001.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018802.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the court. Mr. Pagliuca is arguing to impeach a witness's testimony by highlighting a chronological inconsistency regarding the start date of alleged incidents, claiming they occurred from 2002-2003 rather than starting in 2001 as stated in the indictment and the witness's direct testimony.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018801.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses procedural matters with the Judge (The Court), specifically agreeing not to admit a certain item and mentioning a sidebar discussion needed to address where they left off.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018800.jpg

This document is page 202 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admissibility of specific paragraphs describing Jeffrey Epstein's 'systematic pattern of sexually exploited behavior' utilizing a network of employees. The Judge sustains an objection regarding paragraph 206, ruling it is not inconsistent with testimony.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018796.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination context of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are factual omissions in the complaint compared to the witness's live testimony, specifically noting that the witness testified to 'penetration and intercourse by Epstein,' which was not included in Paragraph 8 of the complaint. The Judge questions Pagliuca on his theory of inconsistency versus omission and prepares to hear from prosecutor Ms. Comey.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018794.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument held without the jury present between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of a 'state complaint' (Exhibit C4). The defense argues that the complaint should be admitted to show that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was not mentioned in it, while the prosecution objects on the grounds that this fact is not inconsistent with the witness's testimony.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018793.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The page captures the moment the judge announces a 15-minute afternoon break to the jury, following the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The transcript was produced by Southern District Reporters, P.C.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018792.jpg

This document is page 194 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focusing on verifying her signature on page 19 of Exhibit C8. The defense moves to admit Exhibits C8 and C9, to which prosecutor Ms. Comey objects, and the Court defers the ruling until a break.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018791.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to refresh the witness's memory regarding prior statements made under oath in 2009 and her answers to interrogatories, but the witness expresses confusion. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains her objections.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018790.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions her about her memory of answering written interrogatories for a lawsuit, which she claims not to recall. The attorneys and the judge then discuss showing Carolyn a portion of her deposition transcript to potentially refresh her recollection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018787.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a complaint Carolyn previously filed against Mr. Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Carolyn states she does not recall certain details of the complaint and denies having reviewed or approved it before her lawyers filed it in federal court.

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