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 hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine M... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a jury note. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination testimony of David Rodgers in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A court hearing where the date of a piece of evidence (a message) from 2004 was discussed. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court proceeding | A judge makes findings of fact based on testimony and rules on several objections related to the ... | Court | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically the calculation of the total ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where objections to the trial record and financial assessments were discussed. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing Ruling | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A court hearing where attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell are presenting arguments to the Court re... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding whether a bequest to an estate in bankruptcy should be considered... | Unspecified Court | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court Filing / Hearing | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing objections (Document 737). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion o... | Courtroom (implied SDNY) | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing guidelines and evidence weight. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court Hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | Discussion on factual objections, adoption of PSR recitations, and the calculation of the Sentenc... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District Court (li... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court Hearing/Sentencing Proceeding | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing | Unknown | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding juror misconduct/inquiry | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell case) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-11 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell is arguing about the contradictory statements and actions o... | N/A | View |
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where the relevance of a prior interview and the motivations of an individual are... | courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22. It records the end of a day's proceedings where the defense (Ms. Sternheim) renews a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. The Judge coordinates scheduling for a charging conference with staff member Ms. Williams and adjourns the court until December 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016917.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. It details the admission of several defense exhibits (DH1-DH4, J2) and a stipulation read by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the HM Land Registry in the UK. The stipulation confirms the registry's authority and authenticates documents retrieved in 2021 regarding two London properties: 69 Stanhope Mews East and 44 Kinnerton Street.
DOJ-OGR-00016916.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing discussions and stipulations regarding the admission of various exhibits (A-1, A-2, DH1, DH2, DH3, J2, DH4) during a legal proceeding. Attorneys MS. COMEY and MR. EVERDELL, along with THE COURT, discuss the admissibility of Palm Beach County school records pertaining to individuals named Virginia Robertson and Jane, and the potential testimony of witness Dominique Hyppolite. The government also requested that Exhibit J2 be accepted under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00016913.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Comey agree to stipulations regarding the admission of redacted Government Exhibits 52-K, 52-J, and 52-L under seal. Additionally, the parties stipulate that the FBI seized Annie Farmer's boots on June 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016912.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell) about the day's trial schedule. The judge discusses the need to potentially keep the jury until 5:30 or 6:00 PM and shows consideration for jurors' potential childcare responsibilities. After the scheduling is discussed, the jury is brought in, and the judge allows Mr. Everdell to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016910.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a critical moment where the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell ('Ms. Maxwell'), formally confirms to the Court that she has decided not to testify in her trial, following consultation with her attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The proceedings include a brief recess, after which attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell confirm their readiness to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Pagliuca, Comey, Everdell, Menninger) about witness scheduling. The discussion revolves around the absence of a scheduled witness, Ms. Dubin, a proposal to call another witness, Agent Young, and difficulties in contacting other individuals in Colorado. The judge grants the lawyers a short break to organize their witnesses before resuming the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016779.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the defense's attempt to impeach an investigation. It references testimony from witnesses Stephen Flatley, who extracted files from devices, and Kimberly Meder, who reviewed photographs. The Court refers to a prior November 1st ruling that precludes certain investigative steps as direct evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016778.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal debate over the execution of a search at a New York residence. Attorneys argue about the specific roles of Special Agent Maguire and Agent Young, particularly concerning who was the overall search leader and who was responsible for extracting files from electronic devices. The judge actively questions the attorneys to clarify these disputed facts.
DOJ-OGR-00016777.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Menninger) counsel. The core issue is whether the defense can introduce evidence related to broader investigative steps, such as a 2019 search, that were not part of the evidence presented to the jury. The prosecution argues this would be confusing and violate a court order, while the defense attempts to justify its relevance.
DOJ-OGR-00016776.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues about the vast amount of data ('millions of files') seized from Mr. Epstein's residence in 2019, contrasting it with the limited evidence presented by the government. A discussion ensues about the witness who testified on this matter, with another attorney, Ms. Comey, correcting Mr. Everdell that the witness was Kimberly Meder, not Mr. Flatley.
DOJ-OGR-00016772.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to revisit a ruling to allow the defense to call FBI case agents as witnesses to question their investigative thoroughness, arguing that 'Jane's testimony' made this a live issue. The Court pushes back, citing the Second Circuit case 'Saldarriaga' and maintaining that the government's investigative techniques do not prove the defendant's innocence.
DOJ-OGR-00016771.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument by Mr. Rohrbach to the court. He refutes a point made by opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, regarding the defense's ability to challenge an investigation's thoroughness. Mr. Rohrbach argues that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses like 'Jane' about events, they are prohibited from calling a case agent during their direct case simply to highlight investigative steps that were not taken, referencing the Watson and Brady cases as precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00016768.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell debating the relevance of questioning a case agent about the timeline of allegations investigated. Ms. Comey argues that the investigation was broader than the specific charges and that the defense can argue the lack of evidence (DNA, phone records) without putting the agent on the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016767.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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that the defense should be allowed to highlight that the allegations are 25 years old. He asserts this explains the absence of corroborating evidence, such as geo-location data, because records are destroyed over such a long period.
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge warns Mr. Everdell that his intended line of questioning for a witness—focusing on what the government didn't do—would violate a prior court order. Mr. Everdell defends his approach as an attempt to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence, but the judge reiterates that the jury's role is to evaluate the evidence the government did present.
DOJ-OGR-00016763.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that he should be allowed to question an agent to explain the absence of modern evidence (like geo-location and phone records) due to the age of the allegations. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach questions the necessity of this, noting that a custodian has already testified regarding recordkeeping.
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016761.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that the lack of corroborating documentary evidence, specifically phone records and emails, is due to the age of the allegations (dating back to the 1990s) when such technology was not widely used. The discussion focuses on formulating questions to an agent regarding this absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016760.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell. The conversation covers the rules for questioning an adverse witness and the scope of upcoming testimony from Special Agent Young concerning prior statements made by an individual named Jane. Mr. Everdell also indicates his intent to question the absence of modern evidence, such as emails from the 1990s, to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016759.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell). The conversation centers on the prior testimony of a witness named Jane, specifically her memory of a trip to New York around 1997 and whether that memory was influenced by her attorney, Mr. Rossmiller. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, also informs the court of their intent to call Special Agent Amanda Young as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016745.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and attorneys about a witness named Kelly. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, introduces a witness from the 'Nags Head Pub' in the U.K., while the opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, objects, stating they have received no prior information and cannot agree to a stipulation. The judge expresses frustration at hearing about this subpoenaed witness for the first time during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016744.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument about a witness the defense has been unable to contact. The defense attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, detail their efforts, including issuing a subpoena and providing contact information. Opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, argues that the defense is raising this issue improperly late in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00016743.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the late introduction of a deposition transcript from 2019, the judge's firm stance against delaying the trial, and a potential issue with the marshal's ability to produce a subpoenaed witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural debate between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger. The discussion centers on the defense's desire to introduce a new witness, the relevance of ownership documents, a stipulation regarding testimony from a Ms. Maxwell, and the recent discovery of a 2019 deposition of Ms. Menninger's client. The transcript highlights the strategic arguments over evidence and witness presentation during a trial.
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.
Jury Instructions / Case Law
Discussion regarding the use of the word 'dominant' in jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 2421, citing United States v. An Soon Kim.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding the admissibility of property ownership records to impeach witness testimony.
Trial Logistics
Discussion regarding the handling of paper evidence binders and maintaining witness anonymity during cross-examination.
Calling next witness
Everdell calls Raghu Sud to the stand.
Exhibit 913 Privacy
Requesting privacy interests for photos on a desk.
Admissibility of property records and need for an additio...
Mr. Everdell discusses with the Court newly obtained property records for Stanhope Mews, which he intends to use to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, additional factual development is needed, possibly requiring another witness, to counter the government's argument.
Juror Exhibits
Request to put folders with exhibits under jurors' chairs.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibits 234 and 245
Discussion regarding photos of Epstein's desk and bookcase.
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
TECS Reports
Confirmation that Aznaran ran three traveler reports in the TECS system for Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding FedEx invoices and their maintenance in the regular course of business.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Timeline of Ms. Maxwell's property ownership and residency
Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title of a property purchased by Ms. Maxwell, stating the deal closed in 1997. He argues this evidence, along with witness testimony from 'Kate', proves Ms. Maxwell did not live at the property before 1996, countering allegations of events in '94 and '95.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding whether the witness saw any inappropriate activity during 30 years of employment.
Legal definitions
Verbal exchange regarding case law and definitions for jury instructions.
Jury Instructions regarding New Mexico Law
Argument that specific sexual activity was not illegal under New Mexico law because it lacked force or coercion, and the jury instruction should reflect this.
Jury Instructions/Verdict Sheet Language
Discussion regarding the phrasing of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six, specifically regarding the age of victims and the name 'Jane'.
Stipulation of facts and admission of exhibits
Discussion regarding the admission of exhibits DH1-DH4, J2, A5, and stipulations regarding UK property records.
Cross-examination regarding photographs found during search
Everdell questions Parkinson about a specific photo of a woman found in Epstein's house and confirms no other photos of her were presented during direct testimony or found in the video evidence.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8 (headshots of cast members).
Jury Instructions/Verdict Form Wording
Discussion regarding wording on pages 25 and 26 of a legal document, specifically regarding 'Jane', 'interstate commerce', and statutory age limits.
Jury Instructions/Charge Language
Discussion regarding the specific wording of sex trafficking charges and conspiracy counts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity