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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The start of a court session where the defense calls its first witness, Cimberly Espinosa, for di... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where attorneys and a judge discuss the details of a search, specifically the ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where the judge and attorneys discuss the legal specifics of a charge related to ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Mr. Everdell, on behalf of the defense, objects to the inclusion of a 'conscious avoidance' jury ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A procedural discussion took place regarding marking an exhibit, providing materials to a witness... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A procedural discussion in court, without the jury present, regarding the handling of sealed exhi... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument between Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell before a judge regarding the admissibility an... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion took place in court regarding the wording of a jury instruction about uncalled witne... | A court in an unspecified d... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Attorneys and a judge discuss how to phrase language from an indictment concerning the age of a v... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Direct examination of witness Espinosa. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Maguire regarding a photograph of a blue spiral staircase, identifi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Cross-examination | Mr. Everdell cross-examines witness Mr. McHugh regarding his knowledge and experience with 'famil... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The defense calls its first witness, Cimberly Espinosa, to testify. The witness is sworn in and b... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between attorneys and a judge regarding the finalization of jury instructions. Speci... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys about the court schedule, specifically the end time ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court session where the judge prepares to bring in the jury and resume testimony with a witness... | Open court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Mr. Visoski regarding Government Exhibits 932 and 704, which depict... | Courtroom (implied Southern... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion between counsel and the court regarding pre-trial issues, specifically the scope of ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Visoski by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding Visoski's knowledge of an... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Parkinson in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, atte... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rodgers regarding passengers on Epstein's planes. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion between the Court (judge) and an attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a proposed line o... | Southern District | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court reconvenes after a recess, the jury is brought in, and the government calls its witness... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court hearing to discuss the admissibility of evidence in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Ms. Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. | In open court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00019044.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on communications in the 2000s, specifically confirming that the witness used cell phones to communicate about flights with a Mr. Visoski and that they had Sarah Kellen's number programmed in their phone. The court briefly interrupts to admonish the speakers for talking over one another.
DOJ-OGR-00019041.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely pilot David Rodgers). The questioning focuses on the role of Sarah Kellen in late 2001, specifically whether she was acting as an assistant to Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or both. The witness confirms Kellen worked for both but expresses uncertainty about whether she was Epstein's 'primary' assistant at that specific time.
DOJ-OGR-00019034.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The witness confirms they were never given any rules about mingling with passengers or interacting with other pilots and staff associated with Mr. Epstein. The transcript also briefly discusses the logistics of using the restroom on a Gulfstream aircraft during flights to Europe.
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-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-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-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-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-00018978.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers authenticates their pilot logbook, confirming it is an accurate record kept in the regular course of their duties. The government attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully moves to admit the logbook into evidence as a sealed exhibit (662) and a redacted public version (662-R), which the court accepts without objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018974.jpg
This document is a transcript of court testimony from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Rodgers, identified as a pilot for Jeffrey Epstein, is questioned about Epstein's and Ms. Maxwell's travel between 1994 and 2004. Rodgers states that Epstein almost always flew private, except for occasional Concorde flights to Europe, and that his plane was down for maintenance annually. The witness also testifies that Ms. Maxwell possessed a 'Raytheon Travel Air card' which allowed her to charter private jets.
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-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-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-00018859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified attorney argues for the record that certain materials are not privileged, citing three reasons: no communication was required, potential disclosure to the government would waive privilege, and the intent to communicate to a third party negates privilege from the start. The judge acknowledges the argument but states that the court had already sustained an objection based on privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00018855.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 discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of a charging conference, potentially on December 16th or 18th. Ms. Moe indicates that the government anticipates resting its case by Thursday of that week, pending the cross-examination of remaining witnesses.
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-00018597.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the examination of witnesses KATE, PATRICK McHUGH, KELLY MAGUIRE, and KIMBERLY MEDER by various attorneys, listing the page numbers for each direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. The document also lists several government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018565.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the beginning of a cross-examination of Special Agent Maguire by attorney Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Maguire's participation in the execution of a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence on July 6th and 7th, 2019. The search was part of an investigation being conducted by the New York FBI at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00018562.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Maguire by counsel Ms. Moe. The witness describes a photograph, Government Exhibit 935, which shows a cabinet in a residence containing boxes of hard drives with evidence tape. A redacted version of the photograph, 935R, is subsequently admitted into evidence by the court without objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Presentation of video evidence and order of witnesses
A dialogue in court where Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss how to show a sensitive video to the jury while protecting privacy, and confirm the upcoming witness schedule.
2007 helicopter purchase and related financial transactions
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. McHugh about a series of financial transactions in June 2007 involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Air Ghislaine, and Sikorsky for the purchase of a helicopter.
Witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Courtroom procedure for handling documents and witness an...
Mr. Everdell agrees with the court's directions and explains the careful procedure they have planned for handling paper binders and manila folders to respect the court's ruling on witness anonymity.
Sentencing Hearing / Fine Determination
Judge asks defense counsel to confirm their assertion regarding inability to pay fine; Judge overrules objection.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Oral argument regarding which sentencing guidelines book applies (2003 vs 2004) and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Sentencing Guidelines / Dangerousness
Argument that background commentary is authoritative and defines 'dangerous' as continuously dangerous to the community, which he argues does not apply to his client.
Government's legal argument on supervision
Mr. Everdell begins to address the Sarah Kellen point and challenges the government's interpretation of case law regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
Denial of Proposed Questions
The Court denies the request to ask specific questions about therapy and abuse history because the defense did not propose comparable questions during the original voir dire.
Inquiry into Juror Bias
Everdell argues for the necessity of asking a juror about the nature of their therapy and abuse history to determine if it aligns with victim testimony, suggesting bias.
Witness Credibility
Argument regarding the contradictions in the subject's statements about public exposure.
Jury Instructions / Evidence Admissibility
Oral argument regarding the admissibility of testimony concerning illegal acts and jurisdiction (NY vs NM).
Witness List Request
Everdell requests a witness list for the next week. Comey agrees to provide it by Saturday end of day.
Jury Instructions regarding Jane's testimony
Discussion about limiting instructions for the jury regarding age of consent in New Mexico and Mann Act charges.
Defense Witness Anonymity
Mr. Everdell informs the court that defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under protection (pseudonyms).
Cross-examination
Procedural discussion regarding a binder of evidence and mask removal, followed by the start of questioning regarding Visoski's employment history.
Clarification of 'minors' in indictment
Argument regarding Count Five, specifically the definition of 'minors' versus specific ages (17 or 18) to avoid ambiguity during the 2001-2004 conspiracy period.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity