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 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion of Jane's testimony... | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding the admissibility of testimony from a case agent concerning the scope ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony regarding exhibits CE4 through CE8. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion concerns th... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) discussing legal text and jury instructions. | Southern District (New York) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Espinosa | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussion regarding trial scheduling, specifically the transition from the gove... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rodgers in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination and excusal of witness Mr. Sud during court proceedings. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Introduction of Defendant's Exhibit TC-1 | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Chapell regarding verification of Jeffrey Epstein invoices. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330 where witness Espinosa identifies exhibits CE3-CE8. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding where the defense intends to impeach an investigation. Discussion includes witne... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony of Mr. Aznaran regarding TECS system searches for three specific travelers. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibits 662 (under seal) and 662-R (redacted) into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings without the jury present. Discussion regarding the provision of transcripts to ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of Mr. Parkinson | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of Document 773 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016968.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between counsel (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge (THE COURT) about editing the language in a document related to transportation. The parties agree to amend a phrase, and the judge, acting on a suggestion from the court clerk, decides to simply cut the words "or foreign" to leave the phrase as "transporting an individual in interstate commerce."
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about finalizing the wording for jury instructions. The parties agree on language concerning the defendant's knowledge of a person named Jane being under 17 and the context of 'interstate commerce'.
DOJ-OGR-00016966.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Everdell and the Judge discuss specific wording amendments to jury instructions or the verdict form, specifically requesting that Count Four be specified as relating 'solely to Jane.' They also discuss a discrepancy between the federal statute age definition (under 18) and New York law (under 17) regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016964.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal case, likely a hearing or trial. It involves discussion about jury instructions, testimony regarding sexual contact between Jane and Epstein in New Mexico, and the testimony of Kate and Annie. The attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, are arguing about the relevance of certain evidence and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00016963.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.
DOJ-OGR-00016962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where Mr. Everdell requests an addition to the jury instructions concerning the testimony of witnesses Kate and Ms. Farmer. Mr. Rohrbach argues against this addition, claiming the existing instructions are sufficient and that adding more would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016961.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell requests that the jury instructions be updated to explicitly state that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, so their testimony cannot be considered evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court is also noted as agreeing to change references from 'the defendant' to 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge ('THE COURT') and an attorney ('MR. EVERDELL'). Mr. Everdell is advocating for a new proposed jury instruction, arguing that its 'dominant purpose' language is more accurate as it is based on Second Circuit case law from Judge Rakoff, unlike the previous instruction's language which he claims was invented by Judge Sand without basis in circuit law.
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00016954.jpg
Page 28 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt details a legal debate between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell before the Judge ('The Court') regarding specific jury instructions concerning 'persuasion and inducement or enticement to travel' and 'significant or motivating purpose.' The Judge overrules a request regarding causation definitions.
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.
DOJ-OGR-00016952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions defining 'causation,' 'inducement,' and 'persuasion' in relation to a victim referred to as 'Jane' traveling in interstate commerce. The defense seeks specific language linking inducement to the travel, while the prosecution argues that the terms inherently imply causation.
DOJ-OGR-00016951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An unnamed speaker contends that a specific instruction on causation for terms like 'persuasion' and 'inducement' would confuse the jury and is not required by precedent from the Broxmeyer case. In response, Mr. Everdell argues that such an instruction would not heighten the level of proof but would simply clarify the meaning of the words as they are used in the statute.
DOJ-OGR-00016950.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing for specific jury instructions regarding the definition of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'enticement' based on the precedent *U.S. v. Broxmeyer*. He proposes language stating that these elements are only satisfied if they specifically *caused* the victim, referred to as 'Jane,' to travel in interstate commerce.
DOJ-OGR-00016949.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and a judge regarding specific wording changes in a legal document. Mr. Everdell proposes omitting the phrase 'or foreign,' suggests replacing 'an individual' with 'Jane' to specify Count Two, and reiterates a previously overruled objection to the word 'coerced.' The Court accepts some changes while confirming others have been overruled, thereby refining the document's language for the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where attorney Rohrbach argues for the distinct meanings of "force" and "coercion" in a sex trafficking statute. The Court overrules an objection by attorney Everdell, who then ensures his objection is preserved for the record before moving on in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00016944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach of the government. They are collaborating to edit statutory text for a legal document, agreeing to remove language related to foreign commerce and coercion to better fit the evidence of the case. The agreed-upon changes include using ellipses and adding the phrase 'knowingly persuades, induces, or entices'.
DOJ-OGR-00016942.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach debating the specific language regarding the age of 'minors' in Count Five of the indictment, which covers a conspiracy period from 2001 to 2004. The prosecutor clarifies that for sex trafficking counts, the relevant age of consent is statutorily defined as 18.
DOJ-OGR-00016939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach (for the government) about jury instructions. The main point of contention is whether to explicitly state 'under the age of 17' for an offense, with Mr. Everdell arguing it's necessary for clarity to distinguish from other individuals mentioned in flight logs whose ages are unknown. The government acknowledges the age is an element of the offense but questions its inclusion in a summary.
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.
DOJ-OGR-00016932.jpg
A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, withdraws a request regarding Counts Five and Six due to statutory changes regarding 'foreign commerce.' The Judge works with defense attorney Mr. Everdell to specifically remove the words 'and foreign' from page 15 of the document under discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00016929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where attorneys debate the legal terminology in an indictment. Mr. Everdell argues against including 'and foreign' in the commerce charge, suggesting a lack of evidence. In response, Mr. Rohrbach, for the government, cites flight records showing the defendant traveled overseas with Jeffrey Epstein and a 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, asserting this evidence supports the 'foreign commerce' element.
DOJ-OGR-00016928.jpg
This is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place in open court without the jury present, involving a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the draft jury charge and verdict form. The Judge outlines the process for reviewing requested changes to the draft charge page by page.
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.
Border crossing data systems (TECS and APIS)
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Aznaran, about the definition of 'border crossing' and the mechanisms by which traveler data is entered into government databases. Aznaran explains that international airline manifests are submitted to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then links to the TECS system.
Exclusion of evidence (Government Exhibits 288, 270, 296)
Mr. Everdell argues that a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296) should be excluded because it shows a photograph on a wall that the Court has already excluded as a separate piece of evidence (Exhibit 288).
Sufficiency of testimony for aiding and abetting charge
Mr. Everdell argues to the court that there is a lack of testimony to support the charge that Ghislaine Maxwell aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein by enticing 'Jane' to travel to New York, a key element of the substantive count (Count Two).
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
Mr. Everdell informs the court that after conferring with the government, they are withdrawing their request for a limiting instruction, believing it would be counterproductive ('the cure is worse than the disease').
Objection to new evidence
Mr. Everdell argues that the government provided new information last week, that his client (Ms. Maxwell) was never shown these documents during her deposition, and that her testimony could be confused due to having multiple past residences.
Procedure for handling a sensitive exhibit
Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss the process for entering an exhibit into evidence that contains the full names of real people. They agree that the names must be redacted, the exhibit sealed from the public, and that specific parties (the Court, Ms. Williams, the witness, the government) will view either electronic or paper versions.
Cross-examination regarding aircraft flown for Mr. Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Visoski, about the timeline of aircraft owned by Mr. Epstein. The discussion covers the sale of a Hawker around 1994, the acquisition of a Boeing 727 around 2000, and the primary use of a Gulfstream in the intervening years.
Epstein's residences in Palm Beach
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the location of Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way and a time when Epstein temporarily moved to a rental property during renovations.
Objection and procedural matters
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the jury viewing the exhibit and informs the court he has a binder for the witness and the court.
Acknowledgement of court's instructions.
Mr. Everdell confirms to the Court that the instructions are 'Totally clear' and states that the government has been provided with copies of the '3500 material'.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Impeachment of witness Juan Alessi
Mr. Everdell argues that they should be allowed to impeach Juan Alessi using his prior inconsistent statements to Sergeant Dawson regarding a burglary.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Conscious avoidance jury charge
Mr. Everdell argues that a 'conscious avoidance' charge would invite the jury to convict on an improper basis. The Court responds by asking for a specific response to the argument about the defendant's lack of knowledge.
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.
Objection to presenting evidence before witness testimony
Mr. Everdell objects to the prosecution's plan to show the jury photographs and a bag of costumes. He argues that this evidence should not be presented until 'witness 3' testifies to establish its relevance, expressing concern that it would prejudice the jury if the witness does not end up testifying.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding whether photographs accurately depict the location during the time of the conspiracy.
Cross-examination and submission of evidence
Mr. Everdell questions Ms. Chapell about FedEx invoices, offers Defense Exhibit TC-1 into evidence under temporary seal, and concludes his questioning.
Witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Jury Instructions
Oral argument regarding the clarity of jury instructions concerning jurisdiction and age of consent.
Ghislaine Maxwell's and Jeffrey Epstein's conduct
Mr. Everdell questions witness Ms. Espinosa about whether she ever saw Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls during her six years of employment. Ms. Espinosa denies seeing any such activity.
Admissibility of property ownership records
Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of records showing the O'Neills owned a property until 1997, not Ms. Maxwell, to counter testimony about her residence there.
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Jury Instructions for Ms. Maxwell's case
Mr. Everdell argues for a supplemental jury instruction regarding the relevance of conduct in New Mexico to a conviction under New York law. The Court rejects the proposed instruction, stating it is incorrect and that the defense failed to seek a limiting instruction on the testimony earlier.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity