Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel parties |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness 1
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gregory Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael Dawson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
colleague
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McHugh
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Professional representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Raghu Sud
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sergeant Dawson
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge (Honor)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00017694.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a juror's question about a 'letter of recommendation' and 'Interlochen applications' contained in evidence binders. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the court instructs Ms. Menninger to resume her cross-examination of the witness identified as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017670.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural interruption during the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane' regarding a missing exhibit in the jurors' binders. The page concludes with Ms. Menninger resuming questioning about a past event where the witness went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017623.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022, discussing a witness's statements regarding her past residences and applications. The conversation involves attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, and the Court, focusing on discrepancies or clarifications needed about the witness's timeline, particularly her living situation before and after meeting Epstein and moving to New York. The nature of a '302' document, described as a type-up of agents' notes, is also clarified.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017617.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00014800.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's decision to overrule an objection regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, financial assets. The judge asserts that an uncertain asset, along with a $10 million bequest from Epstein, must be considered when determining her ability to pay a fine, as she has failed to prove otherwise. The transcript highlights the court's view of Maxwell's finances as a 'moving target'.
DOJ-OGR-00014799.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a 'bequest' listed in the defendant's financial affidavit should not be considered an asset for the purpose of calculating fines because the source estate is in bankruptcy and paying out victims' claims, making the asset 'tenuous.' The Court questions the status of the bequest and asks Ms. Moe (likely the prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00014798.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The text details a recruitment chain involving the defendant, Virginia [Giuffre], Carolyn, and Melissa, noting that Melissa's name appears in the defendant's 'little black book.' The court also discusses financial fines, specifically mentioning the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein as part of her assets.
DOJ-OGR-00014797.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge addresses objections from the defense regarding the application of the 2003 versus 2004 guidelines and an objection from the government that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. The judge explains the legal reasoning, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and the precedent set in Peugh v. United States, to determine which guidelines are applicable.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00014781.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the supervisory authority of Kellen, an employee, in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed defendant. It details arguments about whether Kellen's actions, such as making calls and scheduling massage appointments, constituted supervisory authority, and mentions testimony from pilots regarding Kellen's reporting structure. The discussion also touches upon a five-point enhancement for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00014778.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell held a leadership role ('lady of the house') over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records to prove they were close associates of Jeffrey Epstein simultaneously. The defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) disputes the government's legal interpretation regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00014775.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, capturing a legal argument about evidence. A defense attorney argues that a helicopter purchase and testimony from Larry Visoski about holding assets for Mr. Epstein are not proof of their client's continued involvement in a conspiracy. In response, prosecutor Ms. Moe contends that this financial evidence was specifically offered to prove the defendant remained a 'close associate' of Epstein for many years, contradicting the defense's claim that she had 'moved on'.
DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument by Mr. Everdell before a judge. Mr. Everdell contends that an 'unreliable message pad' is insufficient evidence to increase sentencing guidelines and argues that the 2003 guidelines should apply because the conspiracy in question ended in 2004. He also challenges a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, labeling it an 'extreme stretch'.
DOJ-OGR-00014772.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a message relevant to a criminal case. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues to the court that the message is from November 2004, citing surrounding dates in a message pad, the defendant's travel with Epstein at that time, and testimony from a victim named Carolyn as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014768.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and a defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, during a sentencing hearing. The judge summarizes the probation department's sentencing recommendation and invites Mr. Everdell to present his arguments. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which version of the sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) applies, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00014763.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, dated August 22, 2022, in which a judge overrules several objections. The objections concern evidence from a 2005 search of Epstein's Palm Beach residence indicating additional minor victims, the defendant's responsibility for these victims, and the inclusion of a victim impact statement from a person named Kate. The judge confirms that with certain redactions, the defense no longer objects to Kate's statement.
DOJ-OGR-00014757.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Court makes findings on disputed issues, concluding that Virginia was paid to recruit girls just as Carolyn was. The Judge also overrules defense objections regarding the inclusion of an individual named 'Kate' and the characterization of the defendant 'grooming' a victim named 'Jane.'
DOJ-OGR-00014754.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's rulings on objections from an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge overrules objections concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, citing evidence from the trial. This evidence includes testimony from Juan Alessi about Maxwell targeting a victim named Virginia at Mar-a-Lago, metadata linking Maxwell to a document via the username 'Ghislaine', and bank statements showing a $23 million transfer from Epstein to Maxwell during their conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014753.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Everdell. The primary topic is the procedure for addressing the defense's factual objections to a presentence report (PSR). The judge indicates a readiness to review each objection individually to ensure the report's accuracy before sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00014752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a hearing. The judge confirms with the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, that they have reviewed and discussed the presentence report. The transcript also notes that another attorney, Mr. Everdell, will handle objections for the defense, and confirms with counsel Ms. Moe that a court order was posted online.
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.
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.
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 Guidelines Argument
Oral argument regarding which sentencing guidelines book applies (2003 vs 2004) and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
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.
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.
Witness Credibility
Argument regarding the contradictions in the subject's statements about public exposure.
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).
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.
Cross-examination
Procedural discussion regarding a binder of evidence and mask removal, followed by the start of questioning regarding Visoski's employment history.
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