Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding supplemental jury instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference between Defense and Government | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | 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.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Argument regarding the interpretation of 'dangerous sex offenders' guidelines and background commentary.
Jury Question regarding Count Four
Argument regarding how to answer a jury question about whether a return flight alone can sustain a conviction.
Submission regarding jury instructions
Mr. Everdell mentions he raised the issue in a letter submission or orally.
Presentation of Photos
Everdell explains they only have single copies of certain photos received that morning and proposes walking them to the jury row rather than distributing copies.
Sidebar Request
Requesting a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement of a prior witness.
Jury Folders
Asking permission to place folders under jury chairs for cross-examination.
Witness Anonymity
Requesting anonymity or name protection for defense witnesses.
Cross-examination procedure
Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.
Argument regarding travel purpose
Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.
Jury instructions query
Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.
Jury Instructions
Request regarding instructions for jurors opening binders.
Sentencing Objections
Discussion regarding the scheduling of arguments concerning offense level calculations and financial penalties.
Admissibility of evidence via notary Keith Rooney
Discussion on calling Keith Rooney to authenticate land registry and Grumbridge documents.
Opportunity for additional arguments
The judge indicates they have read the written arguments and offers Mr. Everdell an opportunity to add anything new before asking questions.
Argument on sentencing guidelines and the Ex Post Facto C...
Mr. Everdell argues that the determination of which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply should have been made by a jury, not the court, because the issue involves a factual determination about when the offense ended and implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Clarification of paragraph number
Mr. Everdell interrupts the court to clarify that the court meant to refer to paragraph 9.
Jury instruction on aiding and abetting
Mr. Everdell argues to the court about the specifics of a jury instruction concerning aiding and abetting, particularly in relation to flights to New Mexico and Ms. Maxwell's involvement.
Interpretation of a sentencing guideline
Mr. Everdell argues that the commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative and interpretative, not merely a recitation of Congressional thought, and should be considered by the court.
Objection to Presentence Report (PSR) regarding defendant...
The Court overrules an objection to including a specific asset in Ms. Maxwell's PSR for the purpose of determining a fine, discussing her financial affidavit and ability to pay.
Resting on the papers
Mr. Everdell informs the court that they are resting on the papers.
Objections to paragraphs in a legal document
Mr. Everdell confirms his objections to paragraphs 22 and 3. The Court overrules these objections, citing trial evidence related to witness testimony, metadata, and financial records.
Sentencing guidelines and Ex Post Facto Clause
Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply, due to implications of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Sentencing guidelines and leadership enhancement
The Court asks Mr. Everdell if he has any other points to raise from his papers, specifically mentioning a question about a leadership enhancement.
Sentencing guidelines and government arguments
Mr. Everdell argues that the Court has discretion to use the 2003 sentencing guidelines and disputes a government argument that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, calling it an 'extreme stretch'.
Correction of paragraph number
Correcting the judge saying Paragraph 9 instead of Paragraph 29.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity