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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A discussion between an attorney (Mr. Everdell) and the Court regarding how to respond to a jury'... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and the judge regarding a jury note ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court proceeding regarding the scope of questioning for a juror during voir... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell presented an argument regarding the interpretation of a sen... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding Case 22-1426 (likely United States v. Maxwell appeal or related) | Southern District Court | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court hearing/sidebar conference regarding Juror 50's impartiality. | Courtroom Sidebar | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | An attorney, Mr. Everdell, makes an argument to the court about the authoritative nature of a sen... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court proceeding | A hearing where a judge is ruling on objections related to paragraphs in a legal document. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | Attorneys and a judge discuss evidence related to a defendant's association with Mr. Epstein. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A judge overruled an objection regarding the inclusion of an asset in Ms. Maxwell's Presentence R... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss factual objections to a presentence report (PSR) before sentencing. | Court of the Southern District | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A court hearing where the judge confirms with the defendant and her counsel that they have review... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the judge rules on objections to the calculation of the sentencing guide... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A legal argument was held regarding the timeline of an offense and the applicable sentencing manual. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding sentencing factors, the reliability of evidence, and the ap... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where a judge overrules objections made by an attorney regarding evidence and ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court Hearing (Sentencing/Objections) | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding objections to a report (likely Presentence Investigation Report). | Southern District (New York) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court hearing/sentencing proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) discussing sentencing guidelines and... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding financial assets and fines in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Ma... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) without jury present. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically discussing Instr... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016586.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016585.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Sud during the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Under questioning by Ms. Moe, Sud confirms that he began booking travel for Jeffrey Epstein's office in 1999 and that the records in exhibit 'RS-1' cover the period from 1999 through 2006. Following this confirmation, the witness is excused, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell is instructed to call the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness is questioned about the meaning of fields in financial records belonging to Epstein, which span from January 1999 to December 2006. After confirming the scope of the records, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, concludes his questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00016582.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Sud, during which defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces 'Exhibit RS-1' into evidence. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) agrees to the admission provided the document is kept under seal due to the presence of personally identifying information of third parties. The Court admits the exhibit under seal but allows the jury to view it immediately.
DOJ-OGR-00016576.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of Mr. Sud by Mr. Everdell. Mr. Sud testifies that he lives in East Windsor, New Jersey, and is the Vice President of Shoppers Travel, a company he has worked for since its founding in 1988.
DOJ-OGR-00016575.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It shows the conclusion of the cross-examination of a witness, Espinosa, who confirms working at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan office but not his homes. Following this, the defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, calls the next witness, Raghu Sud, to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016574.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the testimony of a witness named Espinosa, who states under questioning by Mr. Everdell that during her six years working for Ghislaine Maxwell, she never saw Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls. Following this testimony, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and Ms. Pomerantz begins her cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00016571.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Espinosa', is being questioned by Mr. Everdell about a prior videoconference interview with prosecutors that took place during the summer. The attorney introduces a document (3501.063-002) to refresh the witness's recollection regarding the specific date of that interview.
DOJ-OGR-00016570.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa. The questioning by Mr. Everdell focuses on Ms. Espinosa's past employment, the departure of Ghislaine, and the management of Epstein's properties by Sarah Kellen. An objection raised by Ms. Pomerantz regarding Sarah Kellen's marital status is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00016564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa identifies Sarah Kellen from a photograph (Government's Exhibit 327) and testifies that Kellen was hired by Jeffrey Epstein between 2000 and 2002. While uncertain of Kellen's specific job title, Espinosa states that Kellen frequently accompanied Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00016563.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. The witness identifies 'Sarah Kellen' as the person who sat in the office where Ghislaine Maxwell used to sit. The remainder of the page concerns procedural discussions between the defense, prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz), and the Judge regarding the publication of 'Government's Exhibit 327' to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016557.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony confirms that an individual referred to as 'Jane,' along with her mother and brothers, regularly used apartments in New York during the late 1990s and early 2000s. The questioning then shifts to the witness's observations of the relationship and interactions between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell while working in their office.
DOJ-OGR-00016554.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Espinosa (referred to as 'Cimberly' in the exhibits), is testifying about photographs and inscriptions received from an individual referred to as 'Jane.' The exhibits (CE4-CE8) include a signed note thanking Cimberly for her help and photos of a soap opera cast where 'Jane' was employed.
DOJ-OGR-00016553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning focuses on two pieces of evidence: an envelope labeled CE3 and a photograph labeled CE4. The witness identifies the person in the photograph as 'Jane' and confirms the presence of an inscription on it before being interrupted by Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016552.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Ms. Espinosa is being questioned by Mr. Everdell regarding Exhibit CE3, which is identified as a manila envelope sent by 'Jane' to 'Ms. Cimberly' at 'Epstein & Co., 457 Madison Avenue.' The testimony discusses the physical state of the exhibit and the inability to read the postage date.
DOJ-OGR-00016550.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell questions witness Ms. Espinosa regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8, which the witness identifies as headshots of cast members and a group shot she had held onto for many years.
DOJ-OGR-00016547.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on an individual named Jane, her relationship as Jeffrey's goddaughter, and how this status influenced her treatment in 'the office' where her mother also worked. The examination also inquires about Jane's siblings and the extent of contact between Jane's mother and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00016544.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. The witness identifies a person (referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane') from a document and testifies that Jane visited the office approximately five times, appearing to be around 18 years old, and was accompanied by her mother. Attorney Mr. Everdell is also present.
DOJ-OGR-00016543.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Espinosa, testifies about Epstein giving 'Lion King' tickets to almost all employees and confirms that Epstein received female visitors at his office. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibit 12, which is under seal, only to the Court, the deputy, and the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016541.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing testimony from Espinosa. The testimony covers her trip to Europe three years prior, where she stayed at a residence after contacting Ghislaine, and questions about the residence's features. It also includes questions and answers regarding Epstein's charitable donations.
DOJ-OGR-00016523.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). A witness named Espinosa identifies Ghislaine Maxwell in the courtroom and testifies about her six-year employment with Jeffrey Epstein's company. Espinosa states she primarily worked at the office located at 457 Madison in Manhattan, but occasionally worked at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence toward the end of her employment, totaling about one or two weeks over six years. She explicitly denies ever working out of Epstein's Manhattan residence.
DOJ-OGR-00016517.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a Ms. Espinosa. She describes her current role as a senior executive assistant to a CEO and recounts her past employment history, specifically moving to New York around October 1996. Upon arriving, she was hired by J. Epstein & Co. as a legal assistant for the legal team, which included counsels Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke.
DOJ-OGR-00016516.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa by an attorney named Mr. Everdell. Espinosa testifies that she is currently 55, lives in California, works as an executive assistant to a CEO, and establishes that she was 28 years old and living in Midtown in October 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016515.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of the defense's case, where defense counsel Mr. Everdell calls the first witness, Cimberly Espinosa. The transcript details the witness being sworn in, stating and spelling her name for the record, and the commencement of her direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00016513.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and the provision of a large volume of paper documents to an upcoming witness. The discussion concludes with the judge deciding to bring in the jury and Mr. Everdell confirming he will call the first witness.
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 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.
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".
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