Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
38 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Disclosure of evidence | The government provided new information/documents to Mr. Everdell's team. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness discussion | Discussion about a witness coming from the U.K. who cannot be present until Monday. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Instruction | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-12-26 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference and jury service | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-22 | N/A | Deadline for Government to submit updated witness list to the Defense and the Court. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-16 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Mr. Everdell explains why a bequest from an estate in bankruptcy, though di... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sent... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge overrules several objections made by Mr. Everdell regarding evidence and testimony agains... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the evidence for a conspiracy charge. Mr. Everdell argues that a ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Meeting | A court proceeding where objections regarding victims and the defendant's finances were discussed. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding sentencing guidelines in Case 22-1426. The court confirmed an i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss sentencing factors, guidelines, and e... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual based on the timeline ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge (THE COURT) is issuing rulings on objections raised by an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) regardi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to resolve factual objections and determine the correct sentencing guideline c... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the interpretation of pilot testimony about Maxwell's super... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | N/A | Court hearing (likely appeal record filing date, actual hearing earlier) regarding Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District (Court) | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court filing date for Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell Appeal). The transcript records a pr... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing (Appeal or Sentencing related) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | The court and counsel discuss a note from the jury about ending deliberations for the day and a p... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court hearing (voir dire) to discuss the suitability of a potential juror, focusing on his ques... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding how to respond to a jury's question about ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013507.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Rodgers is being cross-examined about their knowledge of Eva Dubin's appearance during a pregnancy. The questioning then shifts to identifying a specific flight, number 878, from Teterboro to Palm Beach on August 18, 1996, using a flight log entered as Government Exhibit 662R.
DOJ-OGR-00013505.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the case number). The questioning focuses on the witness's knowledge of Eva Dubin, her marriage to Glenn Dubin, and flights taken with her children, Selena and Jordan. Notably, the testimony confirms that Jeffrey Epstein was Selena Dubin's godfather.
DOJ-OGR-00013485.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers. The questioning focuses on an unnamed assistant of Epstein, confirming she traveled frequently with him, shared a romantic relationship, and had the same first name as another individual known as 'Jane'. The witness clarifies that despite the shared name, the assistant and Jane are two different people.
DOJ-OGR-00013484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of a trial. A lawyer, Mr. Everdell, is cross-examining a witness, Mr. Rodgers, and requests that both the witness and the jury view evidence labeled LV3A and LV3B, which are photos. Mr. Everdell specifically instructs the witness that he knows the person's name in the photos but should not say it aloud in court.
DOJ-OGR-00013483.jpg
This document is page 205 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on challenging Rodgers' memory of a meeting with a person named 'Jane' on November 11, 1996, establishing that the date is derived solely from flight logs which only list a first name—a name shared by others in Epstein's circle, including an assistant. The page concludes with the introduction of sealed exhibits LV3A and LV3B to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013460.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on transportation arrangements, confirming the witness handled their own, and their communications in the 2000s, specifically confirming they used cell phones to discuss flights and spoke with an individual named Sarah Kellen frequently enough to have her number saved.
DOJ-OGR-00013450.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a pilot named Rodgers in the case involving Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on the lack of rules regarding the pilot's interaction with passengers and other staff, as well as the logistics of leaving the cockpit to use the restroom on a Gulfstream jet during long flights to Europe.
DOJ-OGR-00013449.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of pilot David Rodgers (filed Aug 10, 2022). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell questions Rodgers about flight protocols on Epstein's Gulfstream and Boeing aircraft, specifically confirming that while cockpit doors were closed, Epstein never explicitly instructed Rodgers that he could not leave the cockpit or mingle with passengers.
DOJ-OGR-00013439.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes Mr. Rodgers' employment history as a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein, beginning in 1991, and confirms that he hired his friend, Larry Visoski, as a co-pilot. The transcript clarifies that their roles reversed in late 2004, with Visoski becoming chief pilot, and that Rodgers continued to work for Epstein until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00013438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. Attorney Ms. Comey requests that the jury be directed to Government Exhibit 14, specifically to a child's name and date of birth entry. After receiving no objection from opposing counsel Mr. Everdell and approval from the court, Ms. Comey concludes her direct examination of the witness, Rodgers.
DOJ-OGR-00013417.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness confirms details of two specific flights: one on May 12, 1997, from Santa Fe, NM to Van Nuys, CA with Jeffrey Epstein as the only passenger, and another, Flight 1105, on May 3, 1998, from Palm Beach, FL to Teterboro, NJ with passengers Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and an individual identified only as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00013415.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Rodgers testifies about a flight on November 15, 1996. The witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were passengers on this flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Columbus, Ohio. The testimony also identifies Juan Alessi as Jeffrey Epstein's house manager in Palm Beach for approximately 12 years.
DOJ-OGR-00013411.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge confirms with attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no outstanding matters before instructing for the jury to be brought in and for the witness, Mr. Rodgers, to take the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013409.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It details a discussion between the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a specific jury instruction for a witness named Rodgers. The Judge agrees to instruct the jury that alleged physical contact between the witness, Epstein, and Maxwell in New Mexico was not 'illegal sexual activity,' and the parties agree to discuss a separate 'Rule 412' issue at sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00013408.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the afternoon session of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests edits to a limiting instruction for the jury regarding an upcoming witness, specifically changing the phrase 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact' regarding interactions with Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense confer and agree on the language before the judge approves it.
DOJ-OGR-00013403.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Witness Rodgers testifies about a logbook containing initials 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein) and 'GM' (Ghislaine Maxwell) before the court breaks for lunch. After the jury leaves, defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a procedural objection regarding the government's practice of referring to other flight passengers simply as 'and others' without naming them.
DOJ-OGR-00013394.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Rodgers, identified as a pilot, testifies to the authenticity of their flight logbook, stating entries were made within 30 minutes of flights. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully moves to admit the logbook as evidence (Exhibit 662 under seal and 662-R redacted) with no objection from the defense (Mr. Everdell).
DOJ-OGR-00013388.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning centers on Rodgers' recollection of conversations with Ms. Maxwell regarding the timeline of her residential moves after her father's death in November 1991. The transcript includes legal objections by another attorney, Mr. Everdell, on the grounds of foundation and hearsay, and subsequent rulings by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013386.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring a sidebar discussion during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) argues that evidence of Maxwell's father's death and her subsequent financial decline—followed by Epstein buying her a townhouse—establishes a financial motive for her participation in Epstein's crimes. The defense (Mr. Everdell) objects, claiming the events occurred three years before the alleged conspiracy and are irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00013385.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers describes a large apartment in Manhattan, located at 59th Street near Columbus Circle, and testifies that Ms. Maxwell moved from there to a studio apartment in late 1991 or early 1992. The testimony is interrupted by an objection from an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding the relevance of the questioning, which is then debated in court.
DOJ-OGR-00013292.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a minor issue with the fourth witness, identified as Mr. Rogers. The parties agree to resolve the issue during a break, and the court adjourns until the jury is present.
DOJ-OGR-00013274.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An unnamed speaker outlines three reasons why certain materials should not be considered privileged, including that they were intended for a third party or would lose privilege if shown to the government. The judge acknowledges the argument but notes a prior ruling, after which counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and other lawyers (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Pagliuca) indicate they have no further points on the matter at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00010253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 11, 2022. It captures a discussion between the court, Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell regarding a prior interview with an unnamed male subject. The conversation centers on clarifying what was said during that interview, particularly the subject's reaction to personal questions, and the court ultimately rules that the subject's motivation for speaking to the press after a trial is not relevant to the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010250.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues before the Court that a male subject (likely a juror or witness) lacks credibility because his statements about not expecting to be known contradict his lengthy discussions with a journalist named Lucia from The Independent about the consequences of coming forward. The defense contends the subject is 'talking out of both sides of his mouth' regarding his anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00010249.jpg
This document is page 34 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a male subject (likely a juror) gave inconsistent statements regarding his understanding of the publicity consequences of an interview with a journalist named Lucia, specifically in relation to answers provided on a jury questionnaire. Everdell highlights the contradiction of the subject claiming he did not expect to become known worldwide as a victim of sexual abuse while simultaneously speaking to journalists.
Admissibility of property records and need for an additio...
Mr. Everdell discusses with the Court newly obtained property records for Stanhope Mews, which he intends to use to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, additional factual development is needed, possibly requiring another witness, to counter the government's argument.
Timeline of Ms. Maxwell's property ownership and residency
Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title of a property purchased by Ms. Maxwell, stating the deal closed in 1997. He argues this evidence, along with witness testimony from 'Kate', proves Ms. Maxwell did not live at the property before 1996, countering allegations of events in '94 and '95.
Cross-examination regarding employment with Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the start date of his employment with Jeffrey Epstein, his hiring of Larry Visoski, their respective roles as chief pilot and co-captain, and a role swap that occurred in late 2004.
Proposed Jury Instruction on 'Dominant Purpose'
Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that a new proposed jury instruction is more accurate because it tracks case law development from the Second Circuit, specifically from Judge Rakoff, as opposed to older language invented by Judge Sand that was not based on circuit case law.
Request for jury instructions
Mr. Everdell requests that the jury be explicitly instructed that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, and that related testimony should not be considered as evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court agrees to a separate language change regarding the defendant's name.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Response to a juror's note
Mr. Everdell argues that the answer to the jurors' question should be 'no', based on his interpretation of their note and the court's instructions regarding the purpose of travel.
Scope of cross-examination for witness Ms. Espinosa
Mr. Everdell informs the court about an agreement reached with the government to not cross-examine the first witness, Ms. Espinosa, about a civil lawsuit involving Ms. Galindo and Epstein.
Redactions in documents
Mr. Everdell agreed with the Court's assessment regarding the permissibility of naming individuals not granted anonymity.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
Exhibit 913 Privacy
Requesting privacy interests for photos on a desk.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
Issue with fourth witness
Mr. Everdell informs the court of a small issue regarding the fourth witness (Mr. Rogers) and requests time to confer with the government.
Scheduling of Defense Case
Discussion regarding the timeline for the defense to present their case and the scheduling of the charging conference.
Jury Instructions / Technical Issues
Discussion regarding the definition of 'entice' and citations of case law.
Jury Instructions/Verdict Sheet Language
Discussion regarding the phrasing of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six, specifically regarding the age of victims and the name 'Jane'.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding whether the witness saw any inappropriate activity during 30 years of employment.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding FedEx invoices and their maintenance in the regular course of business.
TECS Reports
Confirmation that Aznaran ran three traveler reports in the TECS system for Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibits 234 and 245
Discussion regarding photos of Epstein's desk and bookcase.
Juror Exhibits
Request to put folders with exhibits under jurors' chairs.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding the admissibility of property ownership records to impeach witness testimony.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity