THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00019033.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of David Rodgers, a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning focuses on flight protocols, establishing that while cockpit doors were closed on the Gulfstream and Boeing aircraft (obscuring the view of the passenger cabin), Rodgers was never explicitly instructed by Epstein that he was forbidden from leaving the cockpit or mingling with passengers.
DOJ-OGR-00019031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers, likely a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein. Rodgers testifies that during thousands of flights piloted for Epstein between 1994 and 2004 (and after), he never observed females on the plane who appeared to be under the age of 18 or 19 without guardians. He specifically confirms that a woman referred to as 'Jane' appeared to be at least 18 years old when he met her.
DOJ-OGR-00019023.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the cross-examination of Mr. Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes the employment timeline of Rodgers and his friend Larry Visoski as pilots for Jeffrey Epstein. Rodgers began as chief pilot in 1991 with Visoski as co-captain; they swapped roles in late 2004, and Rodgers continued working for Epstein until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00019022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. An attorney, Ms. Comey, asks the judge to direct the jury to review Government Exhibit 14, specifically focusing on a child's name and birth date entry. The opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, states he has no objection to this request.
DOJ-OGR-00019008.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness confirms details of two flights from January 2001: flight 1444 on Jan 26th from Teterboro, NJ to Palm Beach, FL, and flight 1445 on Jan 29th from Palm Beach to St. Thomas. Rodgers affirms that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts were all passengers on flight 1444.
DOJ-OGR-00019001.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Rodgers - direct) discussing specific entries in flight logs from 1997 and 1998. The testimony confirms a 1997 flight where Jeffrey Epstein was the sole passenger, and a 1998 flight from Palm Beach to Teterboro where Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person identified only as 'Jane' were passengers. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, objected to the mention of 'Jane,' but was overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00018996.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Mr. Rodgers testifies that he recalls one female passenger on Mr. Epstein's planes who he understood attended 'Interlochen'. Ms. Comey then instructs Mr. Rodgers to silently identify the passenger's full name using Government Exhibit 12.
DOJ-OGR-00018995.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 the judge (THE COURT) confirms with Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no other matters before deciding to bring in the jury and addressing the witness, Mr. Rodgers.
DOJ-OGR-00018992.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, Ms. Comey (for the government), and Mr. Everdell. The attorneys agree on two edits to a limiting jury instruction for an upcoming witness's testimony concerning an alleged incident with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico. The key change is replacing the term "sexual conduct" with "physical contact" to describe the alleged event.
DOJ-OGR-00018991.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and government attorney Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the procedural issue of raising a new argument that was not addressed during a witness's examination, specifically in relation to the testimony of Mr. Alessi. The judge explains their position while affirming they will keep an open mind to future arguments from both sides before the court goes into recess.
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-00018988.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey. The judge rules that document redactions are overly broad and must be narrowed. Ms. Comey agrees, noting the task will be time-intensive, and receives permission from the Court to complete the work over an upcoming long weekend.
DOJ-OGR-00018987.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) during the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers confirms that the initials 'JE' and 'GM' in a logbook refer to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, respectively. Following the dismissal of the jury for lunch, defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a procedural issue regarding the government's practice of referring to other flight passengers as 'and others' without naming them.
DOJ-OGR-00018979.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Comey is conducting a direct examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers. They are discussing Government Exhibit 662, which is identified as a logbook, and Ms. Comey asks the witness to explain the columns in the logbook, starting with the date.
DOJ-OGR-00018972.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on establishing a timeline of Ghislaine Maxwell's residences (moving from a larger apartment to a studio, then to 84th Street, then a townhouse) and mentions the death of her father in November 1991. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises objections regarding foundation and hearsay, which are ruled upon by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00018971.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The transcript captures an exchange where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, argues against the notion that moving into a smaller apartment implies poverty, an argument the court overrules. The testimony also references a point in time when an unnamed female first met Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018970.jpg
This document is a transcript of a sidebar conference during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense (Mr. Everdell) argues against admitting evidence regarding the death of Maxwell's father and her subsequent move to a smaller apartment, claiming it predates the alleged conspiracy by three years. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) argues this evidence is relevant to establish motive, specifically that Maxwell was not wealthy and participated in crimes with Jeffrey Epstein in exchange for financial support, including the purchase of a large townhouse.
DOJ-OGR-00018967.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as 'number two' in the hierarchy below Jeffrey Epstein. The witness recounts meeting Maxwell in July 1991, describes her appearance and personality at that time, and positively identifies her in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00018962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a transition between witnesses. After counsel finishes with a witness named Mrs. Hesse, she is excused, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, calls David Rodgers to the stand. Mr. Rodgers is sworn in and, during the initial phase of his direct examination, identifies his profession as a pilot.
DOJ-OGR-00018960.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a series of messages from court exhibits addressed to individuals named Mr. JE, Sarah, and Jeffrey. The judge (THE COURT) also interjects to provide instructions and clarifications to the jury and counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00018959.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her precision in taking messages. The questioning focuses on a specific document, labeled '1C', which contains messages for a 'Mr. Epstein' and 'Sarah', but which Mrs. Hesse claims she did not write and appears blank on her copy.
DOJ-OGR-00018958.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding messages she recorded. The questioning focuses on identifying the recipients of these messages, specifically Mr. Epstein (initials JE) and a person named Sarah, by referring to an exhibit labeled GX-1B.
DOJ-OGR-00018957.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Ms. Hesse about her knowledge of women visiting Jeffrey Epstein for massages when Ghislaine Maxwell was not present, which Hesse confirms based on messages she took. The testimony also establishes that Hesse knew Maxwell had a home in New York but was unaware of a residence in Miami.
DOJ-OGR-00018954.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination involving a witness named Hesse. The testimony focuses on Hesse's employment history with Maxwell and Epstein, specifically when she started (roughly September 2003) and stopped working for them (around 2004), and that she was hired by Epstein after an interview with Maxwell.
| 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 |
Arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing for Ghi...
The Court ordered a remote hearing via video/teleconference and provided specific dial-in numbers and access codes for various parties to access the live audio feed.
Arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing for Ghi...
The court scheduled a remote video/teleconference for the hearing and provided specific phone numbers and access codes for various parties to access the live audio feed.
Bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell
Farmer addressed the court by telephone during the detention hearing, urging the judge not to grant Maxwell bail.
Superseding Indictment
Ms. Moe stated the government did not currently anticipate seeking a superseding indictment.
Argument for release on bail
Argument stating Maxwell should be released due to COVID-19 risks and lack of flight risk.
Memorandum in Opposition to Detention
Maxwell's argument for release on bail.
Waiver of physical presence
Signed waiver of physical presence form received by the court.
Waiver of Physical Presence
Signed waiver form submitted to the court.
Scheduling of an initial proceeding
Referenced as 'the Court’s Order dated July 6, 2020 (the “Order”) (Dkt. 7)' which prompted the parties to confer on scheduling.
Scheduling and availability
Referenced as 'the defendant’s letter of July 6, 2020 (the “Defense Letter”) (Dkt. 8)' which stated the parties' availability for a remote proceeding.
Request to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act
Referenced as 'Government Letter dated July 5, 2020 (Dkt. 5)' which contained a request that is being renewed and amended in the current letter.
Request for scheduling arraignment
Requested scheduling arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing for July 10.
Motion for detention (Ex.A)
Government moved for detention after arrest.
Memorandum in Support of Detention
Referenced as 'the Government’s Memorandum in Support of Detention, dated July 2, 2020 (Dkt. 4)' for which a briefing schedule is being proposed.
Court Hearing
Hearing conducted by video and telephone conference.
Court Proceedings Access
The court is allowing up to 500 members of the public to access proceedings via telephone conference due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Response to detention motion (Ex.B)
Defense response to government motion.
Motion to Compel Disclosure
Denying motion to compel disclosure of IG materials because the report does not exist yet.
Plea Agreement
Letter on stationery of US Attorney's Office identified as the plea agreement.
Trial Scheduling and Discovery Scope
Discussion regarding the trial date of June 8 and arguments regarding the relevance of institutional failures at the MCC versus the specific 14-hour period of the incident.
Adjournment
Agreement to brief adjournment, opposition to six-month adjournment.
Motion to dismiss and discovery request
A defense attorney informs the court of their intent to file a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution. The attorney also requests discovery related to an Inspector General's report, arguing that this process will cause a delay in the trial.
Scheduling and Motions
Discussion regarding the filing of a motion concerning the IG report and rescheduling deadlines due to personal reasons.
Trial Scheduling
Discussion regarding the trial date set for June 8 and potential conflicts with defense counsel's travel plans.
Scheduling / Conduct
Mr. Foy attempts to raise objections regarding a June 8th date, citing co-counsel's vacation/family obligations and the nonviolent nature of the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity