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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Disclosure of evidence | The government provided new information/documents to Mr. Everdell's team. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness discussion | Discussion about a witness coming from the U.K. who cannot be present until Monday. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Instruction | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-12-26 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference and jury service | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-22 | N/A | Deadline for Government to submit updated witness list to the Defense and the Court. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-16 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Mr. Everdell explains why a bequest from an estate in bankruptcy, though di... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sent... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge overrules several objections made by Mr. Everdell regarding evidence and testimony agains... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the evidence for a conspiracy charge. Mr. Everdell argues that a ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Meeting | A court proceeding where objections regarding victims and the defendant's finances were discussed. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding sentencing guidelines in Case 22-1426. The court confirmed an i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss sentencing factors, guidelines, and e... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual based on the timeline ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge (THE COURT) is issuing rulings on objections raised by an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) regardi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to resolve factual objections and determine the correct sentencing guideline c... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the interpretation of pilot testimony about Maxwell's super... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | N/A | Court hearing (likely appeal record filing date, actual hearing earlier) regarding Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District (Court) | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court filing date for Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell Appeal). The transcript records a pr... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing (Appeal or Sentencing related) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | The court and counsel discuss a note from the jury about ending deliberations for the day and a p... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court hearing (voir dire) to discuss the suitability of a potential juror, focusing on his ques... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding how to respond to a jury's question about ... | Southern District Court (im... | 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.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
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 Instruction 44
Mr. Everdell reads a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses with prior felony convictions.
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.
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 regarding employment with Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the start date of his employment with Jeffrey Epstein, his hiring of Larry Visoski, their respective roles as chief pilot and co-captain, and a role swap that occurred in late 2004.
Proposed Jury Instruction on 'Dominant Purpose'
Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that a new proposed jury instruction is more accurate because it tracks case law development from the Second Circuit, specifically from Judge Rakoff, as opposed to older language invented by Judge Sand that was not based on circuit case law.
Request for jury instructions
Mr. Everdell requests that the jury be explicitly instructed that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, and that related testimony should not be considered as evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court agrees to a separate language change regarding the defendant's name.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Response to a juror's note
Mr. Everdell argues that the answer to the jurors' question should be 'no', based on his interpretation of their note and the court's instructions regarding the purpose of travel.
Scope of cross-examination for witness Ms. Espinosa
Mr. Everdell informs the court about an agreement reached with the government to not cross-examine the first witness, Ms. Espinosa, about a civil lawsuit involving Ms. Galindo and Epstein.
Redactions in documents
Mr. Everdell agreed with the Court's assessment regarding the permissibility of naming individuals not granted anonymity.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Admitting exhibits
Mr. Everdell states he has no objection to the exhibits.
Request for updated witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
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.
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.
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).
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".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity