MR. ROHRBACH
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
90 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Gill Velez
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Co counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Supervisory Investigator Brown
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Representation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
William Brown
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Tracy Chapell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding expert witness testimony scope | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of witness Mr. Kane regarding a student application. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 761 under seal. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussion regarding Rule 15 and witness unavailability due to COVID-19. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell context implie... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine M... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 823 (GX-823) into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury deliberations and exhibits. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing the wording of Count Five and charges related to 'Carolyn'. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/filing discussing jury instructions regarding sex trafficking charges. | Courtroom (implied Southern... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Trial resumption without jury present to discuss procedural matters regarding Rule 16/608 and wit... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding scheduling of legal briefs during trial. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Chapell regarding FedEx records. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing redaction procedures for a letter and Exhibit A, while waiting for juror... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Direct examination of witness Mr. Besselsen in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 761. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings (sidebar or pre-jury session) regarding evidence admissibility. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Afternoon Court Session | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing motions to preclude testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding evidentiary objections (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018990.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Comey, and the judge regarding whether the defense had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness named Mr. Alessi. The judge also mentions a planned briefing on "Government Exhibit 52" as indicated by a Mr. Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00018989.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the examination of a witness named Rodgers. The proceedings involve a discussion between the Court, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell regarding the redaction of a name ('Carolyn') and phone numbers from evidence. Mr. Everdell also coordinates the placement of folders for the jury ahead of cross-examination, and the parties agree to discuss an 'in limine instruction' after the lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00018894.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. It captures the moment an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concludes his questioning of a witness, Gill Velez, by pointing the jury to an exhibit labeled "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the same witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Gill (Gill Velez), about a personnel action notice for an individual named Sky Roberts, which is entered as Government Exhibit 823. The key information established from the document is that Sky Roberts' date of hire was April 11, 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00018892.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Gill Velez. The testimony concerns the authentication of Government Exhibit 823, which is identified as a personnel action notice regarding the original hiring of Sky Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00018889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the beginning of court proceedings for the day, where the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, calls witness Janine Gill Velez to the stand. The transcript records the witness being sworn in and the start of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018887.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Mr. Rohrbach argues to the Court regarding the reliability of forms filled out by Mr. Roberts, an employee of Mar-a-Lago, concerning his dependents and insurance coverage. The argument centers on whether Mr. Roberts had a business duty to be truthful to his employer, distinguishing the situation from the precedent set in United States v. Lieberman, though the Court remains skeptical.
DOJ-OGR-00018886.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel (Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Comey) about Exhibit 52. After confirming no further witnesses will testify about the exhibit, Mr. Rohrbach informs the court of his plan to submit a letter that evening arguing for its admission. The judge instructs him to confer with defense counsel on the matter before the court takes a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018885.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The dialogue involves a debate between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) regarding the admissibility of 'record 824' and the implications of testimony provided by Juan Alessi concerning the year 2001. The proceedings are paused by the Judge to wait for a juror experiencing train issues.
DOJ-OGR-00018882.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding dated August 10, 2022, discussing legal arguments related to factual records, employer practices, and the admissibility of evidence. Key points include an objection to Government Exhibit 761, a Professional Children's School application for Jane, due to unverified financial guarantor information, and the Court's ruling on the relevance of Mr. Epstein's alleged financial assistance to a witness's family. The discussion also touches upon legal precedents for adoptive business records.
DOJ-OGR-00018877.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the admission of exhibits 823 and 824, followed by a recess due to a juror's train delay. The Judge cites the case 'United States v. Lieberman' in relation to arguments about insurance cards and employer verification of employee information.
DOJ-OGR-00018876.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The judge discusses the admissibility of insurance forms under the business records exception. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a minor issue regarding a 'fourth witness' identified as Mr. Rogers, and the court prepares to break until the jury arrives.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018874.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues against admitting insurance requests as business records, stating they do not prove Virginia Roberts was employed by or present at Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach clarifies the government's intent is to show Virginia Roberts was the dependent of Sky Roberts, who is confirmed to be a Mar-a-Lago employee.
DOJ-OGR-00018872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge and attorneys regarding jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named 'Kate' and the applicability of New Mexico law. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim anticipates the government calling Janine Gill as a witness, noting she has been employed by a property company related to the Trump Organization since 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00018868.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00018864.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. The dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018758.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger. The main topics are a potential violation of a witness sequestration order, after Ms. Menninger admits to speaking briefly with a Ms. Moe, and the scheduling of future proceedings. The judge requires the attorneys to brief the sequestration issue and indicates a decision on whether a person named Brian will testify is pending their input.
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach). They discuss procedural issues, including a potential motion to call a witness's brother, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony, and the government's communication with a witness named Jane after she left the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00018756.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Court, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding deadlines for submitting briefs and the results of a factual investigation concerning a male witness. The text also addresses a conflict where the defense has moved to preclude this witness's testimony while simultaneously holding him under a defense subpoena.
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding whether personnel forms constitute hearsay or business records.
Insurance records
Mr. Rohrbach states he will 'go have a conversation with Ms. Gill about this' (referring to records).
Surprise at receiving the defendant's filing.
Mr. Rohrbach mentions a letter his side sent, which indicated they were surprised to receive a filing from the defendant.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the definition of persuasion, inducement, and enticement to travel.
Admissibility of a document under the business records ex...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that a document should be admitted into evidence because it was used in cross-examination and qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school, as the school integrated it into its files and relied upon it.
Argument against defendant's motion on enticement charges...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that the defendant's motion should be denied because the defendant built a relationship with 'Jane' over a multi-year period by playing on her hopes and desires, which constitutes enticement and persuasion leading to her travel to New York.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of a personnel action notice for Sky Roberts.
Withdrawal of request regarding Counts Five and Six
Discussion regarding statutory language 'foreign commerce' and editing jury instructions/charges.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Direct Examination
Legal examination in court
Admissibility of record 824
Discussion regarding legal citation and business records exception for Exhibit 824.
Verdict Sheet Edit
Requesting to change a 'T' in parentheses to a checkmark on the verdict sheet.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the witness's employment.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of personnel records for Sky Roberts.
Admissibility of Evidence (Exhibit 823)
Discussion regarding the relevance of Sky Roberts' employment records and phone numbers to link Virginia Roberts to Mar-a-Lago.
Argument for relevance of documents
Mr. Rohrbach argues that documents, such as a birth certificate, are relevant to connect Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the person who was present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan Alessi and Carolyn.
Jury Instructions
Discussion regarding instructions for alleged victim Kate and New Mexico law.
Admissibility of testimony regarding photos found during ...
Discussion clarifying if the witness can testify about seeing photos of celebrities and nude artwork without the government introducing the physical photos as exhibits.
Expert Witness Notice / Rule 16
Discussion regarding the sufficiency of the government's notice concerning Mr. Flatley's expert opinions and the defense's obligations to review provided materials.
Response to application
Drafting response expected by lunch break.
Admissibility of exhibits 823 and 824
Oral argument regarding whether exhibit 824 adds value beyond 823 and the need to speak with Ms. Gill.
Details of a package shipment from 2002
Mr. Rohrbach questions witness Ms. Chapell about the sender's address, recipient's first name, delivery location, and shipment date of a package sent on December 3, 2002. They also refer to Government Exhibits GX-11 and GX-803/801.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the identity of Green Lake Lodge and authentication of photos.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity