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-00018308.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a cross-examination involving 'Parkinson,' dated August 10, 2022. The discussion centers on a diagram of a house, specifically its foyer and staircase. Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibits 235 and 292, which the Court approves, indicating a transition in the presentation of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018305.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on establishing the layout of a house, specifically identifying the 'lake room' as the location where money was taken and contrasting its position with a 'staff room'. A diagram of the house's second floor, labeled Government Exhibit 297, is introduced as evidence during the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018304.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on a floor plan, identifying a 'staff room' and a 'lake room'. The 'lake room' is established as the location of Mr. Epstein's desk, from which the witness indicates money was taken.
DOJ-OGR-00018303.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The questioning focuses on the floor plan of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence, specifically identifying a 'staff' room located near the kitchen, which is identified in Government Exhibit 238 as a small office. Attorneys Everdell and Comey discuss the admissibility of Exhibit 238 with the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00018296.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson (likely a police officer) by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony covers Parkinson's early interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a burglary investigation in October 2003 and casual encounters seeing Epstein jogging in Palm Beach. It concludes by introducing the topic of a search warrant executed on October 20, 2005.
DOJ-OGR-00018295.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about a visit of under four hours to a residence on October 5, 2003, to speak with Mr. Epstein, and denies knowing or seeing Ghislaine Maxwell there. An attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to a question about a burglar on the grounds of relevance and hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00018293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on a past meeting between Parkinson and Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein's house, specifically in his main office. They discuss a burglary incident where Epstein alleged that cash was stolen from a bag near his desk.
DOJ-OGR-00018292.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Parkinson. The witness confirms meeting with Mr. Epstein at his residence on a Sunday morning to discuss a burglary, where Epstein claimed several thousand dollars in cash were stolen. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, attempts to introduce evidence, but the court states that one of the exhibits is under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00018289.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of a cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning centers on Mr. Parkinson's participation in executing a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005.
DOJ-OGR-00018287.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the admission of 'Exhibit 51' without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey subsequently requests that Detective Byrne come forward to set up and publish the exhibit for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018286.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibit 51 as a massage table that he personally seized from a bathroom at 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully offers the table into evidence without objection from Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018284.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. Witness Parkinson is being questioned by Ms. Comey regarding a photograph (Government Exhibit 285) showing a desktop in a bathroom anteroom at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibit is admitted under seal to protect a party's interests, preventing the witness from reading specific writing on the picture aloud in open court.
DOJ-OGR-00018279.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Comey questions a witness, Mr. Parkinson, about an exhibit, Government 278. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibit as a fair and accurate photograph of the shower room at 358 El Brillo Way as it looked on October 20, 2005, after which Ms. Comey offers it into evidence without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018278.jpg
This document is page 177 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically 'school costumes' and photographs thereof. The Judge rules that a foundation must be laid through a witness, suggesting Special Agent Maguire for this purpose. Following the ruling, the jury is recalled and a witness named Mr. Parkinson takes the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.
DOJ-OGR-00018276.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.
DOJ-OGR-00018275.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. It details a legal dispute where prosecutors Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request to brief an issue regarding photographic evidence, accusing the defense of 'sandbagging' by objecting late. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell denies the accusation, while the Judge notes a 'factual disjointedness' regarding the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018272.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'New York house' (implied to be Epstein's). The prosecution argues the photos corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' who described specific decor (nude artwork, animal decorations, and a red massage room) present during her visits between 1994 and her early twenties.
DOJ-OGR-00018271.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves the Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell discussing procedural matters regarding the sealing of documents and objections to specific evidence (the '900 series' exhibits). Mr. Everdell notes that these objections relate to a search conducted in 2019 and will become relevant when Agent Maguire testifies to introduce the exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00018270.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Comey), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell). They discuss the witness schedule, anticipating finishing with Mr. Parkinson and calling Agent Maguire next. The attorneys also address the handling of evidence, including redacting a video and the incomplete process of dedesignating photos, before the court calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018262.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, details a portion of a direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The government's attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully admits exhibits 289 through 293 into evidence, which are said to accurately depict the second floor of a house at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. After the exhibits are admitted without objection, Ms. Comey begins questioning the witness about their contents.
DOJ-OGR-00018258.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The testimony concerns photographs (Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254) depicting the interior of 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The exhibits are admitted into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00018256.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. It records the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson, during which Ms. Comey (Government) moves to admit Government Exhibits 243 through 250 under seal. The Court admits the evidence without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and the jurors are instructed to review Exhibits 243, 244, 245, and 246 in their binders.
DOJ-OGR-00018255.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. He identifies a series of photographs (Government Exhibits 243-250) as accurately depicting the interior of a property at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The government's attorney, Ms. Comey, offers the exhibits into evidence under seal, and the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, states he has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018249.jpg
This document is page 148 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson by prosecutor Ms. Comey, specifically focusing on the admission and presentation of Government Exhibits 223, 224, and 225 to the jury without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell. The page concludes with Ms. Comey preparing to show the witness Exhibits 226 through 241.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
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.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Oral argument regarding which sentencing guidelines book applies (2003 vs 2004) and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Sentencing Guidelines / Dangerousness
Argument that background commentary is authoritative and defines 'dangerous' as continuously dangerous to the community, which he argues does not apply to his client.
Sentencing Hearing / Fine Determination
Judge asks defense counsel to confirm their assertion regarding inability to pay fine; Judge overrules objection.
Government's legal argument on supervision
Mr. Everdell begins to address the Sarah Kellen point and challenges the government's interpretation of case law regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
Denial of Proposed Questions
The Court denies the request to ask specific questions about therapy and abuse history because the defense did not propose comparable questions during the original voir dire.
Witness Credibility
Argument regarding the contradictions in the subject's statements about public exposure.
Inquiry into Juror Bias
Everdell argues for the necessity of asking a juror about the nature of their therapy and abuse history to determine if it aligns with victim testimony, suggesting bias.
Jury Instructions / Evidence Admissibility
Oral argument regarding the admissibility of testimony concerning illegal acts and jurisdiction (NY vs NM).
Witness List Request
Everdell requests a witness list for the next week. Comey agrees to provide it by Saturday end of day.
Jury Instructions regarding Jane's testimony
Discussion about limiting instructions for the jury regarding age of consent in New Mexico and Mann Act charges.
Defense Witness Anonymity
Mr. Everdell informs the court that defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under protection (pseudonyms).
Cross-examination
Procedural discussion regarding a binder of evidence and mask removal, followed by the start of questioning regarding Visoski's employment history.
Clarification of 'minors' in indictment
Argument regarding Count Five, specifically the definition of 'minors' versus specific ages (17 or 18) to avoid ambiguity during the 2001-2004 conspiracy period.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity