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.
Jury Instructions / Technical Issues
Discussion regarding the definition of 'entice' and citations of case law.
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'.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding whether the witness saw any inappropriate activity during 30 years of employment.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding FedEx invoices and their maintenance in the regular course of business.
TECS Reports
Confirmation that Aznaran ran three traveler reports in the TECS system for Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibits 234 and 245
Discussion regarding photos of Epstein's desk and bookcase.
Juror Exhibits
Request to put folders with exhibits under jurors' chairs.
Trial Logistics
Discussion regarding the handling of paper evidence binders and maintaining witness anonymity during cross-examination.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding the admissibility of property ownership records to impeach witness testimony.
Calling next witness
Everdell calls Raghu Sud to the stand.
Objection to scope of questioning
Argument regarding the relevance of Maxwell's father's death and her housing history.
Jury Instruction Dispute
Discussion regarding how to answer a jury question about conspiracy in Counts One and Three.
Exhibit Identification
Inquiry about trial mark for the 1996 London home sale agreement.
Direct Examination regarding search video
Discussion of Government Exhibit 296 showing a property search.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding flight rules, mingling with passengers, and cockpit procedures.
Jury Instructions/Charge Language
Discussion regarding the specific wording of sex trafficking charges and conspiracy counts.
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).
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.
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').
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').
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.
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.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
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.
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