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-00017602.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. Prosecutors are arguing to admit the testimony of a witness named 'Matt,' who was in a relationship with a victim named 'Jane' starting in 2007. Matt is expected to testify that Jane told him her family struggled financially during her childhood and mentioned an 'uncle' who paid for things, implying a cover story for abuse or grooming.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017601.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger). The discussion centers on the procedure for redacting a witness's identifying information from the testimony, which the judge had previously sealed. They agree on a timeline for the government to propose redactions and for the attorneys to confer and file letters with the court by 10 PM that evening if any disagreements arise.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017600.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Court regarding the need to protect the privacy of a crime victim during upcoming cross-examination. The Court instructs the parties to 'meet and confer' to resolve issues regarding anonymizing names and identifying topics.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017599.jpg

This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe). The main topics are setting a 9:00 p.m. deadline for both the government and defense to submit letters regarding a dispute over Rule 16, and initiating a discussion on how to handle witness identifying information.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017598.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey are discussing legal obligations under Rule 16 regarding the disclosure of impeachment evidence (specifically photographs) prior to cross-examination. The text mentions a witness who testified about the appearance of a home and notes that this witness worked for Jeffrey Epstein until 2019.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017597.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving a legal dispute over the admissibility of impeachment evidence. Ms. Menninger (Defense) argues that she was not required to produce impeachment photographs to the government prior to trial, while Ms. Comey (Government) requests to brief the issue. The discussion specifically references photographs of the 'Epstein home' taken recently (2021/last year) being used to discuss past events.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017596.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 details a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (Defense) and Ms. Comey (Prosecution) regarding Federal Rule 16 and the disclosure of impeachment evidence. The Defense argues that documents used for impeachment (bias, motive, memory) do not need to be produced to the government beforehand, while the Prosecution contests this interpretation.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017595.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal debate over the admissibility of evidence. Attorney Ms. Menninger attempts to impeach a witness's claim of being homeless by showing a document of their current residence, but opposing counsel Ms. Comey objects, citing evidence rules. The judge sustains the objection, agreeing the evidence is not proper for impeachment under the circumstances.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017594.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a trial, case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger, in front of the judge regarding the admissibility of defendants' Exhibit J36. Ms. Comey argues the exhibit is a violation of Rule 16 as it was not produced by the court-ordered deadline, while Ms. Menninger contends it is impeachment material and thus exempt from the rule, a point which Ms. Comey then disputes.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017590.jpg

A court transcript excerpt from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a discussion about witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger raises a concern about a potential undisclosed statement from May 2019. Prosecutor Ms. Comey clarifies that the witness was approached by the FBI in May 2019 but declined to speak, and her first substantive interview did not occur until September 2019.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017589.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, and the presiding judge. The attorneys debate a proposed question for a witness, Jane, regarding her potential financial stake in the case's outcome. The judge overrules the objection, deciding to allow the question but with a limiting instruction to the jury to ensure they understand the witness is testifying to her own understanding, not providing legal instruction.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017587.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (sidebar conference) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge discuss whether the witness ('Jane') understands how the jury's verdict might impact payouts from the Victim Compensation Fund. Menninger argues that the witness has already received money from the fund based on her story, and discusses the relevance of the fund to the witness's motivation.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017586.jpg

This document is a transcript page from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving Ghislaine Maxwell. A witness identified as 'Jane' testifies under direct examination that she received approximately $2.9 million from a victim compensation fund. She confirms that as a condition of receiving this award, she was required to dismiss her lawsuits against Maxwell and the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger objects to a question regarding the impact of the jury's verdict on this award.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017576.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. A witness identified as 'Jane' is being questioned by Ms. Moe regarding Government Exhibit 245, which consists of two photographs: a modeling photo from age 15 and a headshot from age 19. Jane testifies that her mother made her send the headshot to Jeffrey Epstein after she landed her first big job, and she inscribed it with the phrase 'thanks for rocking my world,' which she now describes as 'cringey.'

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

DOJ-OGR-00017575.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". Jane describes being summoned by a man named Jeffrey from a pool area to his bedroom or massage room. During the testimony, an exhibit containing two pictures of Jane (Government Exhibit 245) is admitted into evidence under seal, consistent with the court's ruling allowing her to use a pseudonym.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017574.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct testimony of a witness named "Jane." Jane testifies that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein when she was a teenager and that an individual named Maxwell was present for these abuses on more than two occasions. She describes how these incidents would often begin as casual social gatherings at Epstein's house in Palm Beach.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017569.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Ms. Moe conducting a direct examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning centers on conversations Jane had with her mother about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell when she was a teenager. The judge interrupts to provide a limiting instruction to the jury, clarifying that this testimony should be considered for its effect on the witness, not for the truth of what was said.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017568.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a brief conversation where the judge confirms with two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, that there are no preliminary issues to discuss before bringing in the jury. The proceeding involves the direct examination of a witness named Jane.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017567.jpg

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, regarding the expected testimony of a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe outlines that Jane will testify about being discouraged by her mother from disclosing family issues, especially after her mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor following her father's death. The opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, states she has no objection to this testimony, after which the court takes a short break.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017566.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 attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger regarding the admissibility of testimony from a witness named 'Jane' about her mother. Specifically, Ms. Moe argues to admit statements where Jane's mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor, instructing Jane never to talk about what happens in their house; the Court agrees to admit this with a limiting instruction that it is offered for the effect on the listener, not for the truth of the mother's statements.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017565.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal debate between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger). The issue concerns the admissibility of statements made by the witness 'Jane's' mother; the government argues it is for the 'effect on the listener' rather than the truth of the matter, while the defense argues it introduces hearsay and precludes cross-examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017562.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named "Jane." An attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Jane about whether her mother was aware that she was spending time with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as a teenager. Jane confirms her mother knew and was "enamored" by the idea, though they did not discuss it in detail. The transcript also includes a hearsay objection by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, which is overruled by the court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017560.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Jane' by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on Jane identifying photographs of herself (Government Exhibits 107 and 108) and confirming she was 15 and 17 years old, respectively, when they were taken.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017529.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Jane. She testifies that in 1994, upon returning to Palm Beach from summer camp, her family had lost their home and was living in a friend's pool house where she shared a bed with her mother. She further testifies that shortly after starting eighth grade, she was contacted by two people she had met at summer camp.

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

DOJ-OGR-00017524.jpg

This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the direct examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The witness identifies a photograph of herself (Government Exhibit 106) taken when she was 13 years old, which is admitted under seal to protect her anonymity. The questioning establishes her household situation in 1993, noting she lived with her mother and two brothers.

Court transcript (direct examination)
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