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-00016740.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument regarding the defense's request to introduce a new, 81-year-old witness. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, claims the witness is crucial for testifying about property records to challenge the timeline of events described by someone named Kate. The opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, objects, arguing that the late introduction constitutes a delayed disclosure and is prejudicial to her side.
DOJ-OGR-00016739.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, discusses an upcoming witness from the U.K. and a declaration provided by an unnamed witness. This witness, who owns the Nags Head Pub, has direct knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell's ownership and residency at a Kinnerton Street property, having observed her presence there daily and noting her occupancy timeline. The document also includes a brief comment from MS. COMEY regarding the defense's preparation time.
DOJ-OGR-00016738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on scheduling, with the defense arguing they cannot conclude their case until the following Monday due to outstanding stipulations and a witness who is only available on that day. The identity of this witness is apparently unknown to at least one of the parties, prompting a question from the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00016722.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and defense counsel (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim) regarding the trial schedule, specifically aiming to finish witness testimony by the following morning to allow for closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday. The court also mentions a pending motion to preclude and a previous ruling on anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00016715.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of the recross-examination of a witness named Aznaran, focusing on whether paper records were logged into the CBP system in the 1990s. Following Aznaran's dismissal, defense attorney Ms. Menninger calls a new witness, Dominique Hyppolite, to the stand for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016714.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It features the recross-examination of Officer Aznaran regarding Customs and Border Protection (CBP) record-keeping practices during the 1990s and prior to 9/11. The witness confirms that records during that era were paper-based.
DOJ-OGR-00016713.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Aznaran confirms that a record for Annie Farmer reflects an actual border crossing at an airport related to a Düsseldorf flight, and that this information is not dependent on airline data. After attorney Mr. Everdell concludes his questions, attorney Ms. Pomerantz begins a new recross examination regarding the absence of digital kiosks in the 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016710.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Aznaran by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes that travel records for individuals named Jane, Kate, and Annie before September 11, 2001, are not exhaustive. The witness confirms that prior to 9/11, airlines were not as complete in providing passenger manifests as they were afterward, suggesting a reason for the incomplete records.
DOJ-OGR-00016705.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding travel records for Annie Farmer. The testimony confirms a flight by Farmer on July 20, 1997, from Düsseldorf to Newark, and notes that there were no border crossing records for her in the TECS system during 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016703.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The questioning focuses on establishing the age of a person named Jane during two international flights: one on April 15, 1996, from Milan, Italy (MXP) to JFK, when she was 15, and another on June 21, 1997, when she was 16.
DOJ-OGR-00016701.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The questioning focuses on establishing the date range of entries in records belonging to an individual named 'Kate'. The attorney confirms specific dates from the records, including the earliest entry on one page as February 29, 2004, the latest as April 3, 2006, and another early entry on a different page as November 1, 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00016696.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The witness explains how to interpret specific fields in a travel record, clarifying that 'site' refers to a federal inspection site like an airport terminal (e.g., 'Alpha 471' for JFK's Terminal 4) and 'type' indicates how the border crossing data was collected. The transcript also includes a brief interjection from the court to an attorney, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016694.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The witness confirms retrieving 'person encounter lists' (border crossing records) from the TECS system regarding three individuals: Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, which were generated on December 14, 2021. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, successfully moves to admit these records as Exhibit MA1 under seal to protect the privacy of the witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00016693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Aznaran by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding reports run in the TECS (Treasury Enforcement Communications System). The testimony confirms that Aznaran ran traveler reports for three individuals: Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, and introduces an exhibit marked as MA1.
DOJ-OGR-00016692.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, attorneys discuss procedural matters with the judge, including a successful request for a one-hour filing extension and an announcement that the parties have reached a stipulation regarding Mr. Glassman, which avoids the need for his live testimony. The transcript concludes as the court prepares to bring in a witness and the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016691.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admissibility of records to potentially impeach a witness's testimony regarding public assistance timelines relative to the charged conspiracy. Following a recess, the defense and prosecution (represented by Ms. Pomerantz) agree on redactions for a specific exhibit to be presented to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016690.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues regarding the relevance of travel records for a woman named 'Kate,' noting a discrepancy where she claimed to be on public assistance while simultaneously 'flying all over the world' and maintaining contact with Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) suggests redacting information that postdates the charged conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00016688.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar discussion while the jury is not present. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz debate the admissibility of 'Exhibit MA1,' which contains victim travel records spanning 15 years (up to 2010). The prosecution objects to records outside the charged indictment period citing relevance and victim privacy, while the defense argues the 2010 cutoff was previously negotiated with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00016687.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Aznaran. The witness confirms they were instructed to search the TECS system for border crossing records pertaining to individuals named Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer for the period between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2010. The proceedings are briefly interrupted when Mr. Everdell requests a sidebar, after which the judge calls for a 15-minute break for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016685.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Mr. Aznaran is being questioned on direct examination regarding his search of the TECS system for border crossing records of three specific travelers. The attorney, Mr. Everdell, introduces Government Exhibit 12 under seal to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran by Mr. Everdell. Aznaran explains that border crossing data, particularly from international flights, is collected when airlines submit passenger manifests to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then feeds into the TECS database. The witness also states that these records typically date back to the early or mid-1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016674.jpg
This document is page 191 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (US v. Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in and commencement of the direct examination of defense witness Michael William Aznaran by attorney Mr. Everdell. Before questioning begins, there is a brief procedural discussion regarding the timing of a sidebar to address a government objection to a forthcoming exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00016673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing the end of Professor Loftus's testimony. Under redirect by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, Loftus confirms her testimony would remain unchanged regardless of which side called her. Following her excusal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Michael Aznaran.
DOJ-OGR-00016623.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of the next witness. Mr. Everdell indicates the next witness will be either Richard Barnett or Michael Aznaran from Customs and Border Protection, after which the court takes a 45-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Redactions in documents
Mr. Everdell agreed with the Court's assessment regarding the permissibility of naming individuals not granted anonymity.
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.
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.
Witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding whether photographs accurately depict the location during the time of the conspiracy.
Request for updated witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
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.
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.
2007 helicopter purchase and related financial transactions
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. McHugh about a series of financial transactions in June 2007 involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Air Ghislaine, and Sikorsky for the purchase of a helicopter.
Jury Instructions
Oral argument regarding the clarity of jury instructions concerning jurisdiction and age of consent.
Volume of evidence from a 2019 search
Mr. Everdell argues that millions of files were taken from Mr. Epstein's residence, but the government has only presented a small portion to the jury, and he wants to establish the total volume.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity