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-00018173.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on confirming Alessi's prior sworn testimony about his chain of command, where he identified Mr. Epstein as his direct supervisor and Ms. Maxwell as the secondary contact.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018167.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 Mr. Alessi, who testifies that he, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell all lived at the residence on El Brillo Way during major construction in 1994. Alessi confirms he had complete access to the house during this time.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018163.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, Mr. Alessi, regarding a 2020 declaration where he stated he was instructed by Jeffrey Epstein to pick up a woman referred to as 'Ms. Jane' in West Palm Beach and drive her to Epstein's home. Alessi expresses confusion about the 'declaration' terminology but confirms that the signature on the document dated July 9 is definitely his.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018162.jpg

This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Ms. Comey objects to the defense using a prior declaration, arguing it isn't inconsistent, but the Court overrules the objection, allowing Mr. Pagliuca to question the witness about the discrepancy between 'multiple occasions' (testimony) and 'one' (declaration).

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018161.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the consistency of a witness's (Alessi) testimony. The discussion focuses on impeaching the witness over the specific years (between 1993-1996) and the number of occasions he observed events involving Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and a person named Jane in West Palm Beach. The attorneys quote prior statements to challenge the witness's current testimony during cross-examination.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018160.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing a sidebar conversation between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. The discussion focuses on a semantic argument regarding whether the witness's prior testimony of 'multiple occasions' is inconsistent with a specific statement of observing a person named 'Jane' exactly 'three' times at Epstein's Palm Beach home. The defense argues that 'three' contradicts 'multiple,' while the Court questions this logic.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018159.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It depicts a brief exchange during the cross-examination of witness Alessi, where attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues about inconsistencies in specific paragraphs, but the Court sustains objections against them.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018158.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of witness Juan Alessi (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Alessi about his signature on a document labeled 'JA-1' dated July 9, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to the reading of the document, claiming it is not inconsistent testimony, while Pagliuca moves to introduce the entire exhibit.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018156.jpg

This document is page 55 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a procedural discussion during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge discuss referencing specific lines from 'yesterday's testimony' and a deposition to establish context for the witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018155.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on prior deposition testimony from exhibit 3504-22. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects, arguing that the testimony is not inconsistent with what has already been presented, leading to a procedural discussion with the judge.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018153.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi) by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's previous testimony in 2016, conducted in Fort Lauderdale by Brad Edwards (Virginia Roberts' lawyer), regarding a person named 'Jane' and events in 1994 or 1995. Alessi claims in the current testimony that he may have confused 'two girls' during that previous deposition.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018151.jpg

This document is a transcript page from a court sidebar conference in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca apologizes for an unintentional error during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey criticizes his preparation and suggests a protocol for reading prior inconsistent statements, while the Judge accepts the apology as an accident but warns that a different approach will be needed if the error repeats.

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

DOJ-OGR-00018149.jpg

Page 48 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca asks if Alessi met a person identified as 'Jane' in 1998 or 2000, which the witness denies. The Court intervenes to ensure 'Jane's' real name is not mentioned, and Pagliuca confirms he has redacted the name from his copies.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018147.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's purchase of a $590,000 property with his wife in West Palm Beach in September 2002, which is linked chronologically to a break-in at Mr. Epstein's house. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains the objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018143.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi, filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony references a previous deposition from September 8, 2009, where Alessi admitted to stealing a total of $6,300 on two separate occasions at night. The questioning attorney attributes the theft to Alessi's 'financial problems,' which Alessi appears to confirm.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018141.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his prior deposition testimony concerning an incident where he went to a house at night to get money while no one was home. The court is also present, facilitating the proceeding.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018134.jpg

This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a moment where Ms. Comey addresses the court regarding display screens, followed by the Judge instructing Ms. Williams to bring in the jury. A witness, Mr. Alessi (likely Juan Alessi, Epstein's former house manager), is then greeted and told to take his seat.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018133.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a logistical discussion between a judge and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca). The main topic is how to display video evidence to the jury without it being visible at the counsel's tables. The timing of this technical arrangement is coordinated around a planned 10:30 morning break and the upcoming cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018132.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys (Moe, Everdell, Comey) and the Judge discussing the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' specifically her detailed description of the interior and artwork of a house. Additionally, Ms. Comey raises a privacy concern regarding ensuring that a video shown to jurors does not simultaneously appear on public screens in overflow rooms, which is relevant for the witness following Mr. Alessi.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018129.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell are discussing with the judge the proper way to present evidence, including items in a bag and photographs of a residence. Mr. Everdell raises a concern about the relevance of photographs taken during a 2019 search, as they depict the residence's interior 15 years after the alleged conspiracy ended in 2004.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018128.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. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe debating the admissibility and description of 'costumes' (Government Exhibit 53) and photographs of them (Exhibits 919 and 920). The defense argues specifically that these items must not be described to the jury as 'schoolgirl outfits' to avoid prejudice.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018127.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the presentation of evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, objects to the prosecution's proposal to show the jury a bag of costumes and related photographs, arguing that this should not happen until 'witness 3' testifies to establish the items' relevance. Everdell expresses concern that showing the items prematurely could unfairly prejudice the jury if the witness's testimony is delayed or does not occur.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018126.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge regarding the admission of evidence, which is revealed to be photographs of costumes. The judge rules the evidence is relevant but reserves a final decision on its admission pending connecting testimony from a future witness.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018123.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely from the defense, argues against admitting costumes as evidence, claiming they are irrelevant and would prejudice the jury. In response, Ms. Moe, for the prosecution, argues the evidence is highly relevant to counter the defense's repeated claims that Epstein had no interest in underage girls, citing his possession of "schoolgirl outfits" near his massage room.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018122.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence. The key points are the government's intent to use photographs of a massage room rather than the physical table, and Mr. Everdell's argument that costumes found in a 2019 search are irrelevant as they were discovered 15 years after the alleged conspiracy.

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