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 | Court proceeding | A discussion on the record regarding a jury instruction for a photo and an agreement to redact a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Rodgers by Ms. Comey, where the jury is directed to review Governme... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the Court and Mr. Everdell regarding a supplemental jury instruction concern... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The defense offers Defendant's Exhibit RS-1 into evidence. The exhibit is admitted temporarily un... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court hearing where attorneys and the judge discuss scheduling and witness logistics. | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | An afternoon session of a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where attorneys and the judge discussed ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion about the procedural handling of redacted photographic evidence during a trial. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where procedural matters were discussed, including making copies, taking a recess... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where the government offers photographic evidence (Exhibits 240, 256, 257, 260, 2... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Visoski regarding his communication with Sarah Kellen. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court session where government exhibits were admitted into evidence and a witness was called to... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where counsel for the government and defense discuss witness lists and investi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion between the court and Mr. Everdell regarding the language of a proposed jury instruc... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Attorneys are arguing before a judge regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically a phot... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court takes a 45-minute lunch break during a trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument presented by Mr. Rohrbach to the court concerning the limits of defense counsel'... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of Special Agent Maguire regarding Government Exhibit 929, which is admitted i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument regarding the admission of Ms. Maxwell's deposition as rebuttal evidence concern... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel regarding witness scheduling and the relevance of test... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers regarding Epstein's assistant. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding a procedural issue with the wording of an indictment, specifica... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between the judge and several lawyers regarding witness availability and sc... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A judge confirms with two parties, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, that there are no preliminary matt... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding a request for anonymous protection for witnesses testifying on ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion was held between the judge and attorneys regarding a stipulation for a witness's add... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
EFTA00030386.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's initial custody conditions from July 6 to July 13, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell ahead of deadlines set by Judge Nathan and her arraignment, with BOP officials noting she is receiving more access than typical inmates. The chain concludes with the prosecution seeking confirmation that Maxwell is housed in a single cell separated from other inmates for security reasons to include in a public filing.
EFTA00024788.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-10, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and MDC staff regarding the scheduling of legal calls for Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest. The correspondence highlights urgent requests for access due to court deadlines set by Judge Nathan, the establishment of a standing 10 AM daily call schedule leading up to her arraignment on July 14, and some friction regarding whether defense counsel was following proper protocols for requesting calls.
EFTA00024437.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest on July 6, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell to meet a court deadline set by Judge Nathan and establishes a schedule for daily standing calls with her defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, leading up to her arraignment on July 14, 2020. There is some friction regarding whether defense counsel followed proper protocols for requesting calls, with prison officials defending their responsiveness.
EFTA00015957.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest in July 2020. Key topics include scheduling urgent legal calls for her defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) ahead of deadlines and her arraignment, establishing a standing 10:00 AM call schedule, and confirming her housing conditions (solitary cell and separate exercise) for court filings. BOP officials note that Maxwell was receiving significantly more legal access (2-hour afternoon calls plus morning calls) than typical inmates.
EFTA00015951.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-11, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest. The emails coordinate urgent legal calls between Maxwell and her defense counsel (specifically Mr. Everdell) ahead of court deadlines and her arraignment scheduled for July 14, 2020. There is discussion regarding a 'standing legal call' at 10:00 AM and adherence to EDNY/SDNY protocols for scheduling inmate calls.
DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018352.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey) and the judge. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically clarifying which numbered massage room photos are to be admitted as evidence with redactions. Mr. Everdell also informs the court that the defense and the government have reached an agreement on a testimonial stipulation for a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson.
DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018336.jpg
This document is page 235 of a court transcript index from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the examination details (Direct and Cross) for witnesses Juan Patricio Alessi, Gregory Parkinson, and Michael Dawson by attorneys Pagliuca, Comey, and Everdell. It also tracks the receipt of numerous Government Exhibits (numbered between 201 and 721) into the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018334.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor (Ms. Comey), and Defense (Mr. Everdell) are discussing the timeline for redacting and releasing photographs and videos to the public. The Judge emphasizes the need to release as much information to the public as possible while protecting the privacy of those testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00018330.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson. Dawson confirms that an individual named Juan Alessi admitted to taking $5,600 from a briefcase to pay for his girlfriend's immigration papers. The transcript concludes with the judge adjourning the session for the night and providing instructions to the jury for the upcoming weekend.
DOJ-OGR-00018325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning concerns Sergeant Dawson's potential participation in an investigation of a burglary at Jeffrey Epstein's residence, to which Dawson responds that he does not recall. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by confusion over the correct binder of documents being used as evidence, which the judge helps to resolve.
DOJ-OGR-00018323.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018322.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a cross-examination of a witness named Dawson by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to a question about a residence, leading Mr. Everdell to request a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement by a prior witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceedings, the government attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully has several photographs admitted as evidence, and then questions Sergeant Dawson about a search. Sergeant Dawson testifies that he notified the crime scene unit, led by Greg Parkinson, to photograph and process the evidence he seized.
DOJ-OGR-00018318.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of Sergeant Dawson by Ms. Comey, focusing on items, specifically 'message books,' found and seized during a search conducted under a warrant. Sergeant Dawson confirms his and Detective Dix's involvement in locating and seizing these items from a house.
DOJ-OGR-00018313.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 testimony by a witness named Mr. Parkinson, who is excused by the court to catch a flight. Subsequently, the government (represented by Ms. Comey) calls Sergeant Michael Dawson as a witness, who is sworn in and begins his direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018311.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on a specific photograph of an unidentified woman found during a search of Jeffrey Epstein's house conducted by Parkinson. Everdell establishes that Parkinson did not recall finding, nor did the government present, any other photographs or video evidence of this specific woman from the search.
DOJ-OGR-00018310.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining witness Mr. Parkinson regarding photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 234 and 245) which depict Jeffrey Epstein's desk and bookcase shelves. The exhibits are noted as being 'under seal'.
DOJ-OGR-00018309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. An attorney questions Parkinson about Government Exhibits 235 and 292, establishing that photographs of a "windy staircase" do not show any pictures on the adjacent wall. The proceedings also involve a discussion among attorneys and the judge about another piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 234, which is confirmed to be sealed.
Status of Bequest and Fines
Discussion regarding whether a bequest should be considered an asset for fines given the estate's bankruptcy.
Presentation of video evidence and order of witnesses
A dialogue in court where Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss how to show a sensitive video to the jury while protecting privacy, and confirm the upcoming witness schedule.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cross-examination regarding a photograph
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Mr. Rodgers, about a photograph (exhibits GX250 and C10), asking if he has seen it before and if he recognizes the person in it. The witness tentatively identifies the person as Eva Dubin.
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.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
Admissibility of Government Exhibits 250, 251, and 270
Mr. Everdell discusses photographic evidence with the judge. He confirms Exhibit 270 will not be offered, notes the prior exclusion of Exhibit 251 (a photo of a naked toddler), and argues that Exhibit 250, which depicts Jeffrey Epstein with a young girl, should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial.
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 Evidence
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Exhibit 913 Privacy
Requesting privacy interests for photos on a desk.
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.
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').
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
Redacted evidence and witness stipulation
Mr. Everdell discusses the logistics of preparing redacted versions of evidence (massage room photos) and informs the court that the government and defense have agreed to a testimonial stipulation for witness Sergeant Michael Dawson.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
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.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity