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-00021579.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a legal argument about whether an individual named Maxwell had supervisory authority over another person named Kellen. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge that pilot testimony and the fact that someone was present while Kellen scheduled massage appointments is insufficient evidence to prove a supervisory role. The discussion also touches upon sentencing enhancements for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00021576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 31, labeled SA-400) filed on 06/29/2023. It details legal arguments regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's leadership role in the conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Moe (government) argues that Maxwell acted as the 'lady of the house' and supervised Sarah Kellen, while Mr. Everdell (defense) disputes the government's interpretation of case law regarding the supervision of other criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues against sentencing enhancements for his client, challenging the reliability of evidence like an 'unreliable message pad' and contesting the government's claim that the defendant received $7 million in 2007. The discussion revolves around the applicable sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the 2003 guidelines should be used based on the conspiracy's end date in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021571.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. He contends that a piece of evidence, an undated and unverified message pad, is unreliable for establishing the end date of a conspiracy. Mr. Everdell also argues that since a person named Carolyn was no longer a minor in 2005, the conspiracy as charged could not have existed at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00021566.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, detailing a legal discussion between a judge and attorneys. The government, represented by Ms. Moe, argues that the 2004 Manual is applicable because the offense in question continued past November 1, 2004, citing trial testimony. The judge reframes the issue, focusing the argument on whether there is a preponderance of evidence of conspiratorial conduct within the specific two-month window of November and December 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.
DOJ-OGR-00021563.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge finalizes objections, adopts the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) into the record, and begins to address the disputed sentencing guideline calculation. The judge notes the defense's position that the correct sentence is 51 to 63 months' imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00021562.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically page 17 of the session, page 132 of the filing) involving a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Judge regarding sentencing procedures. The Judge confirms the rejection of a redaction request and states that testimony from an individual named 'Kate' is relevant to the sentencing. The parties agree to delay arguments regarding offense level calculations and financial penalties until a later point in the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021561.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing a judge's rulings on objections to specific paragraphs (82, 83, and 85) in a legal report (likely a pre-sentencing report). The judge overrules objections regarding evidence from a 2005 search of a Palm Beach residence involving Epstein and sexualized massages, addresses the defendant's responsibility for victimizing additional minors, and discusses the inclusion of a victim impact statement by an individual named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a judge is ruling on several objections. The judge finds Carolyn's testimony about being paid by the defendant to be credible and overrules objections regarding the mention of a person named Kate and the characterization of the defendant having groomed another person named Jane. The judge's rulings suggest a denial of motions that were likely filed by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021552.jpg
This court transcript page, dated June 29, 2023, documents a judge overruling several objections from attorney Mr. Everdell. The judge upholds evidence against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, including testimony that she targeted a victim named Virginia, metadata suggesting she authored an essay, and the assertion that she received approximately $23 million from co-conspirator Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021551.jpg
This document is page 6 (labeled SA-375) of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's given the attorneys involved). The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the 'factual accuracy' of the presentence report (PSR). Ms. Moe, representing the government, states they have no further objections, while Mr. Everdell, representing the defense, questions the procedure for addressing their 'substantial factual objections' and whether every discrepancy needs to be resolved.
DOJ-OGR-00021550.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) concerning the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The proceedings cover the confirmation of victim notification postings on the U.S. Attorney's website. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, both confirm on the record that they have reviewed the presentence report and discussed it. Ms. Sternheim notes that co-counsel Mr. Everdell will handle objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019173.jpg
This document is an index from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the examination of a witness named Tracy Chapell, listing the page numbers for the direct examination by Mr. Rohrbach and the cross-examination by Mr. Everdell. The index also catalogs government and defendant exhibits (801, 801-R, 802, 802-R, 803, 803-R, and TC-1) that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019172.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the end of a day's proceedings where Ms. Comey (Government) and Mr. Everdell (Defense) confirm they have no further matters, leading the Court to adjourn the session until December 10, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00019171.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The judge announces to the jury and counsel that an unnamed attorney in the case is ill and needs care, leading to the adjournment of the court for the day. The judge indicates proceedings are expected to resume the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00019169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding FedEx invoices. The defense introduces Exhibit TC-1 under temporary seal pending redactions, which is admitted without objection from prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the witness is subsequently excused.
DOJ-OGR-00019167.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony concerns the verification of 'Jeffrey Epstein invoices' which were marked as Defendant's Exhibit TC-1.
DOJ-OGR-00019161.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on shipping invoices showing packages sent by G. Maxwell (associated with Jeffrey Epstein's address at 457 Madison Avenue) to Isabel Maxwell and Ron Burckle. The defense counsel specifically establishes that these invoices do not show any packages being sent to a person named 'Carolyn'.
DOJ-OGR-00019159.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Chapell in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Everdell questions the witness about a specific invoice transaction sent by 'S. Kellen' to 'Carolyn' in West Palm Beach, Florida. The defense establishes that the witness does not know S. Kellen and distinguishes S. Kellen from Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019157.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The questioning focuses on a shipment document which lists Ghislaine Maxwell as the sender and Casey Wasserman as the recipient. The document also contains information linking Jeffrey Epstein to the address 457 Madison Avenue, and the questioner confirms there was no financial transaction on the associated invoice.
DOJ-OGR-00019155.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The questioning focuses on a FedEx slip, establishing that a package was sent by 'Cecilia Steen' and 'Jeffrey E. Epstein' from 457 Madison Avenue. The recipient's first name is confirmed as 'Caroline' and the destination as West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00019154.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 Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding Government's Exhibit 803-R. The testimony confirms a FedEx invoice dated October 14, 2002, associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account at 457 Madison Avenue, NY, and discusses a specific shipment picked up on October 7, 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00019152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony reveals details of a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Jeffrey E. Epstein and Cecilia Steen, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue in New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida. The questioning then begins to address invoices from Federal Express that were provided to the witness by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019150.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient's location as West Palm Beach, Florida, with the recipient's first name being Carolyn.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
Issue with fourth witness
Mr. Everdell informs the court of a small issue regarding the fourth witness (Mr. Rogers) and requests time to confer with the government.
Scheduling of Defense Case
Discussion regarding the timeline for the defense to present their case and the scheduling of the charging conference.
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'.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Defense Witness Anonymity
Mr. Everdell informs the court that defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under protection (pseudonyms).
Jury Instructions regarding Jane's testimony
Discussion about limiting instructions for the jury regarding age of consent in New Mexico and Mann Act charges.
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