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-00018466.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Pomerantz, and Ms. Sternheim about the admissibility of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates of the emails can be presented to the jury, but the content and subject matter must be redacted, and information identifying a witness must be sealed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018465.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the admission of evidence showing the dates a female witness ('she') maintained contact via email with a male subject ('him') to prove a relationship existed after the events in question. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) argues that the witness already admitted to the dates, making the evidence cumulative.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence—specifically an email—under the doctrine of 'past recollection recorded.' The Judge questions what specific details the witness failed to recall that would necessitate admitting the prior record.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018462.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal exchange between Ms. Sternheim (Defense) and Ms. Pomerantz (Prosecution) regarding an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K-8' or '3513-019'. Ms. Pomerantz begins a legal argument citing the 'recorded recollection rule' as an exception to hearsay.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018461.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz discuss the admissibility and origin of two exhibits: a visa application bearing the name 'Kate' (Exhibit K-9) and emails between a witness and Mr. Epstein (Exhibit K-7). Ms. Pomerantz clarifies that the visa form was provided by the witness's counsel during a previous meeting to discuss visa status.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018458.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a brief exchange where an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a lunch break during the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The Court grants the request, announcing to the jury a break for 45 minutes to an hour starting at 12:45.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018457.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, questions Kate about her employment in the music industry and her limited knowledge of the requirements for a U visa, specifically its connection to being a victim of a crime. After the questioning concludes, another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a break from the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018456.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on the justification for her visa, which she claims is based on an 'extraordinary ability' related to music coaching. The attorney challenges this basis, and an objection from another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, is sustained by the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018453.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. Ms. Sternheim introduces an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K9' and questions Kate, directing her to find and confirm her 'true name' within the document.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018449.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination of a person named Kate. The questioning covers a $1,200 payment for therapy and Kate's familiarity with a man named Ray Hamilton, whom she describes as an acquaintance and a friend of a friend, known both in 'the states' and London.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018444.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Kate in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness admits to initiating contact with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, asking to stay with him in New York, and maintaining contact with him via email over the years. Conversely, the witness confirms she had no email correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018443.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 named Kate, who admits to initiating email contact with Jeffrey Epstein to arrange a meeting and asking to stay at his residence in New York. Ms. Pomerantz objects to several lines of questioning during the proceedings.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018442.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. It details the cross-examination of a witness named 'Kate' by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on establishing that the witness maintained email correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008 (regarding pictures) and in 2011, even after he had been in jail.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018441.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning, led by Ms. Sternheim, focuses on Kate's correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein while he was in jail. Kate confirms the correspondence, admits she told Epstein she would send pictures (but denies actually sending them), and confirms she signed her letters with 'Best love always, Kate'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018438.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on her involvement in an embarrassing event that was reported in the paper, an alleged payment of £40,000 which she denies receiving, and a recorded conversation she had with a male acquaintance about obtaining drugs that was publicized in a British tabloid.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018433.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a sidebar discussion from a trial, filed on August 10, 2022. During the cross-examination of a witness named Kate, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim is questioned by the judge about the relevance of asking about the witness leaving her husband to travel with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein. Opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz, objects to the line of questioning, arguing it is suggestive and should have been raised as a '412 issue'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018432.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on an incident where Kate missed a flight from the US to London, met a man named Kevin, and went to his home. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) objects to this line of questioning on grounds of relevance, leading the judge to call for a sidebar.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018418.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning concerns Kate's filmography, referencing specific numbered items on a list and the IMDB system. An objection for lack of foundation is made by another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, which the court sustains.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018412.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. Kate confirms that at the time she met Ghislaine and Epstein, she was an international model. She states she met Ghislaine in Paris while traveling with an older man she was dating, who she learned was an Oxford classmate of Ghislaine.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018410.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by a lawyer, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's prior testimony about admiring a person named Ghislaine and probes into the wealth of her family, specifically her mother and her stepfather, who owned a private plane.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018409.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 sidebar discussion regarding '3500 material' where a prosecutor argues for the right to ask redirect questions about a witness's history as a domestic violence victim if defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises the issue. The judge agrees, the witness is recalled, and the jury is brought back in.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018408.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a sidebar discussion where a judge rules to exclude evidence of a single sexual harassment allegation due to a lack of a pattern or proffer of falsity. Following the ruling, two attorneys, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim, discuss a planned line of questioning for a witness. Ms. Sternheim clarifies her intent is not to ask about the witness's ex-husband, but rather to ask if the witness had requested a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018407.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion before the direct examination of a witness named Kate. Counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests a sidebar with the Judge to address matters concerning the witness's anonymity status. The Court agrees, and the subsequent pages of the transcript are sealed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018400.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 Kate. Kate testifies that when she was 23 or 24, Ghislaine Maxwell invited her to 'the island' and asked her to massage Jeffrey Epstein, confirming that sexualized massages took place. She also recalls seeing a very young blond girl on the island and states that she initially associated with Maxwell and Epstein because she sought a friendship with Maxwell.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018389.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that Ghislaine Maxwell told her about Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preferences, stating he liked 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he 'needed to have sex about three times a day'. This testimony suggests Maxwell's role in communicating Epstein's sexual demands and grooming potential victims.

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