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-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.
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