DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg
583 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
583 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit property records showing the O'Neill family, not his client Ms. Maxwell, owned a property until 1997. This is intended to counter government testimony that Ms. Maxwell lived there starting in 1992, but the judge emphasizes that the key legal question is residence, not ownership.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Counsel |
Speaking on behalf of the defendant, arguing to admit property ownership records.
|
| O'Neills | Property Owner |
Mentioned as the family who owned a property until 1997.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the discussion regarding her residence and property ownership. The government has testimony from her.
|
| Kate | Witness |
A person whose testimony is being discussed in relation to events that allegedly couldn't have happened.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Presiding over the court proceedings, referred to as THE COURT.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
| government | government agency |
Represents the prosecution, presenting testimony against Ms. Maxwell.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1992
The government has testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she began living at a property in 1992.
2022-08-10
A legal argument between Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning property ownership versus residence.
Courtroom
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by the court in a question about renting places.
|
Relationships (3)
The transcript notes "(Counsel conferred with defendant)", indicating Mr. Everdell is Ms. Maxwell's lawyer.
Mr. Everdell is an attorney arguing a point before the judge (THE COURT) in a formal court proceeding.
The government is presenting testimony against Ms. Maxwell in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, the records show that the O'Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the O'Neills, not Ms. Maxwell."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Arguing that Ms. Maxwell did not own the property in question during the relevant time.)
DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg
Quote #1
"The relevant question is residence. The government has testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in 1992."Source
— THE COURT
(Focusing the legal argument on the issue of where Ms. Maxwell lived, rather than who owned the property.)
DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg
Quote #2
"Your Honor, I think the solution to this problem -- and this would not be a mini trial -- is for us to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Proposing a way forward to present his evidence to the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,406 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 13 of 246 2308
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
impeachment as to when she lived there. What is the relevance
to when she owned it?
to when she owned it?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the records show that the
O'Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the
O'Neills, not Ms. Maxwell.
O'Neills owned that property until 1997, some family of the
O'Neills, not Ms. Maxwell.
THE COURT: They don't rent places in London?
MR. EVERDELL: That's something that the government,
I'm sure, could argue to the jury. But this is extremely
relevant. We're equally able to argue to the jury that this
shows that she owned it, and what Kate is testifying to
couldn't have happened because --
I'm sure, could argue to the jury. But this is extremely
relevant. We're equally able to argue to the jury that this
shows that she owned it, and what Kate is testifying to
couldn't have happened because --
THE COURT: Well, again, it shows ownership. I get
that. The relevant question is residence. The government has
testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in
1992. What evidence do you have as to whether or not she lived
there prior to ownership?
that. The relevant question is residence. The government has
testimony from Ms. Maxwell that she lived there beginning in
1992. What evidence do you have as to whether or not she lived
there prior to ownership?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I may have a moment.
THE COURT: You may.
(Counsel conferred with defendant)
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the solution to
this problem -- and this would not be a mini trial -- is for us
to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records.
And if the government wants to admit the testimony to be able
to argue the opposite point, then okay. But that's hardly a
mini trial. And then each side gets to argue their point.
this problem -- and this would not be a mini trial -- is for us
to be able to admit the records showing the ownership records.
And if the government wants to admit the testimony to be able
to argue the opposite point, then okay. But that's hardly a
mini trial. And then each side gets to argue their point.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016496
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document