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-00019148.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 803 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." Following her testimony and with no objection from another attorney, Mr. Everdell, the court admits this exhibit and others into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019143.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach and Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge regarding the redaction and docketing of a letter and an 'Exhibit A'. The proceedings appear to be paused briefly while waiting for missing jurors to arrive.
DOJ-OGR-00019128.jpg
This document is page 4 of 49 from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys Everdell and Menninger discuss procedural logistics with the Court, including the distribution of exhibits to jurors and the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer, who is noted as testifying openly rather than anonymously. Ms. Comey, representing the government, offers no objection to the handling of juror exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00019127.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of his intent to introduce Federal Express invoices as evidence through the next witness, Tracy Chapell. He requests to submit the documents under a temporary seal to allow time for redactions, proposing to have a public version ready by the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00019126.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel without the jury present. The attorneys address several procedural matters, including agreements to release a witness named Carolyn from recall, to permit Kimberly Meder to be present in the courtroom, and to allow the defense time to review a redacted video of a Palm Beach residence before its formal submission as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019124.jpg
This document is the final page (Index of Examination) of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers, along with the attorneys conducting the examinations (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Comey, Pagliuca, Moe, Everdell). It also logs the receipt of Government Exhibits 823, 823-R, 105, 1, 2, 3, 662, and 662-R.
DOJ-OGR-00019119.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell, and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding trial scheduling, specifically when the government's case will conclude and when the defense will begin presenting their case. The prosecution requests Rule 26.2 disclosures at the conclusion of their case.
DOJ-OGR-00019118.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a delay in starting the defense's case because the government shortened their case unexpectedly, causing witness scheduling issues. The Court agrees to delay the defense case start until the following Thursday and discusses scheduling a charging conference for Friday or the evening of the 16th.
DOJ-OGR-00019117.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between the judge, the government's attorney (Ms. Moe), and the defense attorney (Mr. Everdell). The attorneys provide updates on when their respective cases will proceed, and the judge proposes potential dates, specifically the 16th or 18th of the month, for the charge conference. The conversation aims to establish a clear timeline for the remainder of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019116.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Mr. Rodgers (likely Epstein's pilot David Rodgers), is being questioned by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding dates he met specific individuals, including a 'Jane' in November 1996 and another individual in September 2003, referencing his flight logbook for verification. The witness confirms he does not recall meeting anyone else with the same first name on Epstein's planes, after which he is excused and the court breaks for the evening.
DOJ-OGR-00019112.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' 30-year employment with Mr. Epstein, establishing that Rodgers never witnessed any behavior from Ghislaine that suggested she was helping Epstein abuse underage girls. Rodgers also confirms he was comfortable with his own teenage daughter spending time with Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00019096.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on confirming the location of Jeffrey Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach and establishing that Epstein temporarily relocated to a nearby rental property during a period of renovation.
DOJ-OGR-00019094.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sealed documents labeled LV4 and LV5. The attorney instructs the witness to use the pseudonym 'Kate' for a name appearing on document LV4 and asks the witness if they recall meeting that person on any flights.
DOJ-OGR-00019093.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning confirms that an individual named Emmy was a passenger on one of Epstein's planes. The transcript also establishes that, according to the witness's recollection and the flight logs, there is no record of a person named Annie Farmer ever flying on Epstein's planes.
DOJ-OGR-00019091.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses first on a photograph of Eva Dubin and whether she appeared pregnant, then shifts to examining Government Exhibit 662 (flight logs). Specifically, the questioning confirms a flight (number 878) that took place on August 18, 1996, traveling from Teterboro to Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00019068.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a criminal court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a cross-examination by Mr. Everdell, likely of Mr. Rodgers, concerning evidence labeled LV3A and LV3B, and photos depicting an unnamed individual. The Court and jury are involved in the process of reviewing this evidence, with specific instructions given regarding its handling and the non-disclosure of a person's name.
DOJ-OGR-00019062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning establishes that 'Jane' is an alias for a woman whose real name the witness knows. The key point of the testimony is the witness's recollection of seeing this woman, 'Jane', on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00017027.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dialogue between the Judge (The Court) and attorneys Menninger, Rohrbach, and Everdell regarding the finalization of evidence exhibits (specifically a flash drive and physical exhibits) to be sent to the jury. The page concludes with the court announcing a recess to await the jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00017026.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. They discuss logistical matters for the trial, including the preparation of redacted transcripts for jury read-backs and the decision to provide the jury with digital exhibits on a flash drive instead of physical copies. The judge also coordinates with a Ms. Williams to finalize the exhibit list for both parties.
DOJ-OGR-00017023.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the prosecution and defense. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically the confirmation that trial exhibits have been made public through the U.S. Attorney's Office and the logistics of redacting sensitive information from closing argument slides in a timely manner. Counsel clarifies which version of a specific exhibit, AF-1R, is the public version.
DOJ-OGR-00017021.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. The Court, along with counsel Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach, finalizes a minor textual edit and discusses redactions. The judge thanks the court staff and all parties for their willingness to work on a Saturday before adjourning the proceedings until 8:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim. The conversation centers on logistical planning for the end of a trial, including the timing of closing arguments, the significant length of the jury charge (about 80 pages), and the procedures for handling jury exhibits, noting changes from previous COVID protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00017014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The discussion centers on finalizing the 'verdict sheet,' specifically correcting a typographical error where a 'T' appeared instead of a checkmark. The Judge outlines a schedule for receiving a letter from the government regarding open issues and sending out final redline and clean versions of the documents.
DOJ-OGR-00017013.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys Everdell and Rohrbach debating and agreeing upon the specific phrasing for legal charges with the Judge, specifically regarding 'sex trafficking' and 'conspiracy' counts involving individuals under the age of 18 and a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00017012.jpg
This document is page 86 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the specific wording of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six. They agree to replace the term 'minor' with 'individuals under the age of 17' and specify '(Jane only)' for certain counts.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Argument regarding the interpretation of 'dangerous sex offenders' guidelines and background commentary.
Jury Question regarding Count Four
Argument regarding how to answer a jury question about whether a return flight alone can sustain a conviction.
Submission regarding jury instructions
Mr. Everdell mentions he raised the issue in a letter submission or orally.
Presentation of Photos
Everdell explains they only have single copies of certain photos received that morning and proposes walking them to the jury row rather than distributing copies.
Sidebar Request
Requesting a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement of a prior witness.
Jury Folders
Asking permission to place folders under jury chairs for cross-examination.
Witness Anonymity
Requesting anonymity or name protection for defense witnesses.
Cross-examination procedure
Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.
Argument regarding travel purpose
Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.
Jury instructions query
Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.
Jury Instructions
Request regarding instructions for jurors opening binders.
Sentencing Objections
Discussion regarding the scheduling of arguments concerning offense level calculations and financial penalties.
Admissibility of evidence via notary Keith Rooney
Discussion on calling Keith Rooney to authenticate land registry and Grumbridge documents.
Opportunity for additional arguments
The judge indicates they have read the written arguments and offers Mr. Everdell an opportunity to add anything new before asking questions.
Argument on sentencing guidelines and the Ex Post Facto C...
Mr. Everdell argues that the determination of which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply should have been made by a jury, not the court, because the issue involves a factual determination about when the offense ended and implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Clarification of paragraph number
Mr. Everdell interrupts the court to clarify that the court meant to refer to paragraph 9.
Jury instruction on aiding and abetting
Mr. Everdell argues to the court about the specifics of a jury instruction concerning aiding and abetting, particularly in relation to flights to New Mexico and Ms. Maxwell's involvement.
Interpretation of a sentencing guideline
Mr. Everdell argues that the commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative and interpretative, not merely a recitation of Congressional thought, and should be considered by the court.
Objection to Presentence Report (PSR) regarding defendant...
The Court overrules an objection to including a specific asset in Ms. Maxwell's PSR for the purpose of determining a fine, discussing her financial affidavit and ability to pay.
Resting on the papers
Mr. Everdell informs the court that they are resting on the papers.
Objections to paragraphs in a legal document
Mr. Everdell confirms his objections to paragraphs 22 and 3. The Court overrules these objections, citing trial evidence related to witness testimony, metadata, and financial records.
Sentencing guidelines and Ex Post Facto Clause
Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply, due to implications of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Sentencing guidelines and leadership enhancement
The Court asks Mr. Everdell if he has any other points to raise from his papers, specifically mentioning a question about a leadership enhancement.
Sentencing guidelines and government arguments
Mr. Everdell argues that the Court has discretion to use the 2003 sentencing guidelines and disputes a government argument that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, calling it an 'extreme stretch'.
Correction of paragraph number
Correcting the judge saying Paragraph 9 instead of Paragraph 29.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity