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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Disclosure of evidence | The government provided new information/documents to Mr. Everdell's team. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness discussion | Discussion about a witness coming from the U.K. who cannot be present until Monday. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Instruction | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-12-26 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference and jury service | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-22 | N/A | Deadline for Government to submit updated witness list to the Defense and the Court. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-16 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Mr. Everdell explains why a bequest from an estate in bankruptcy, though di... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sent... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge overrules several objections made by Mr. Everdell regarding evidence and testimony agains... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the evidence for a conspiracy charge. Mr. Everdell argues that a ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Meeting | A court proceeding where objections regarding victims and the defendant's finances were discussed. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding sentencing guidelines in Case 22-1426. The court confirmed an i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss sentencing factors, guidelines, and e... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual based on the timeline ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge (THE COURT) is issuing rulings on objections raised by an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) regardi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to resolve factual objections and determine the correct sentencing guideline c... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the interpretation of pilot testimony about Maxwell's super... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | N/A | Court hearing (likely appeal record filing date, actual hearing earlier) regarding Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District (Court) | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court filing date for Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell Appeal). The transcript records a pr... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing (Appeal or Sentencing related) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | The court and counsel discuss a note from the jury about ending deliberations for the day and a p... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court hearing (voir dire) to discuss the suitability of a potential juror, focusing on his ques... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding how to respond to a jury's question about ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016740.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument regarding the defense's request to introduce a new, 81-year-old witness. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, claims the witness is crucial for testifying about property records to challenge the timeline of events described by someone named Kate. The opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, objects, arguing that the late introduction constitutes a delayed disclosure and is prejudicial to her side.
DOJ-OGR-00016739.jpg
This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, discusses an upcoming witness from the U.K. and a declaration provided by an unnamed witness. This witness, who owns the Nags Head Pub, has direct knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell's ownership and residency at a Kinnerton Street property, having observed her presence there daily and noting her occupancy timeline. The document also includes a brief comment from MS. COMEY regarding the defense's preparation time.
DOJ-OGR-00016738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on scheduling, with the defense arguing they cannot conclude their case until the following Monday due to outstanding stipulations and a witness who is only available on that day. The identity of this witness is apparently unknown to at least one of the parties, prompting a question from the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00016722.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and defense counsel (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim) regarding the trial schedule, specifically aiming to finish witness testimony by the following morning to allow for closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday. The court also mentions a pending motion to preclude and a previous ruling on anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00016715.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of the recross-examination of a witness named Aznaran, focusing on whether paper records were logged into the CBP system in the 1990s. Following Aznaran's dismissal, defense attorney Ms. Menninger calls a new witness, Dominique Hyppolite, to the stand for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016714.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It features the recross-examination of Officer Aznaran regarding Customs and Border Protection (CBP) record-keeping practices during the 1990s and prior to 9/11. The witness confirms that records during that era were paper-based.
DOJ-OGR-00016713.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Aznaran confirms that a record for Annie Farmer reflects an actual border crossing at an airport related to a Düsseldorf flight, and that this information is not dependent on airline data. After attorney Mr. Everdell concludes his questions, attorney Ms. Pomerantz begins a new recross examination regarding the absence of digital kiosks in the 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016710.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Aznaran by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes that travel records for individuals named Jane, Kate, and Annie before September 11, 2001, are not exhaustive. The witness confirms that prior to 9/11, airlines were not as complete in providing passenger manifests as they were afterward, suggesting a reason for the incomplete records.
DOJ-OGR-00016705.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding travel records for Annie Farmer. The testimony confirms a flight by Farmer on July 20, 1997, from Düsseldorf to Newark, and notes that there were no border crossing records for her in the TECS system during 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016703.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The questioning focuses on establishing the age of a person named Jane during two international flights: one on April 15, 1996, from Milan, Italy (MXP) to JFK, when she was 15, and another on June 21, 1997, when she was 16.
DOJ-OGR-00016701.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The questioning focuses on establishing the date range of entries in records belonging to an individual named 'Kate'. The attorney confirms specific dates from the records, including the earliest entry on one page as February 29, 2004, the latest as April 3, 2006, and another early entry on a different page as November 1, 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00016696.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The witness explains how to interpret specific fields in a travel record, clarifying that 'site' refers to a federal inspection site like an airport terminal (e.g., 'Alpha 471' for JFK's Terminal 4) and 'type' indicates how the border crossing data was collected. The transcript also includes a brief interjection from the court to an attorney, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016694.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran. The witness confirms retrieving 'person encounter lists' (border crossing records) from the TECS system regarding three individuals: Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, which were generated on December 14, 2021. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, successfully moves to admit these records as Exhibit MA1 under seal to protect the privacy of the witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00016693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Aznaran by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding reports run in the TECS (Treasury Enforcement Communications System). The testimony confirms that Aznaran ran traveler reports for three individuals: Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, and introduces an exhibit marked as MA1.
DOJ-OGR-00016692.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, attorneys discuss procedural matters with the judge, including a successful request for a one-hour filing extension and an announcement that the parties have reached a stipulation regarding Mr. Glassman, which avoids the need for his live testimony. The transcript concludes as the court prepares to bring in a witness and the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016691.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admissibility of records to potentially impeach a witness's testimony regarding public assistance timelines relative to the charged conspiracy. Following a recess, the defense and prosecution (represented by Ms. Pomerantz) agree on redactions for a specific exhibit to be presented to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016690.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues regarding the relevance of travel records for a woman named 'Kate,' noting a discrepancy where she claimed to be on public assistance while simultaneously 'flying all over the world' and maintaining contact with Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) suggests redacting information that postdates the charged conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00016688.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar discussion while the jury is not present. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz debate the admissibility of 'Exhibit MA1,' which contains victim travel records spanning 15 years (up to 2010). The prosecution objects to records outside the charged indictment period citing relevance and victim privacy, while the defense argues the 2010 cutoff was previously negotiated with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00016687.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Aznaran. The witness confirms they were instructed to search the TECS system for border crossing records pertaining to individuals named Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer for the period between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2010. The proceedings are briefly interrupted when Mr. Everdell requests a sidebar, after which the judge calls for a 15-minute break for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016685.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. A witness named Mr. Aznaran is being questioned on direct examination regarding his search of the TECS system for border crossing records of three specific travelers. The attorney, Mr. Everdell, introduces Government Exhibit 12 under seal to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran by Mr. Everdell. Aznaran explains that border crossing data, particularly from international flights, is collected when airlines submit passenger manifests to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then feeds into the TECS database. The witness also states that these records typically date back to the early or mid-1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016674.jpg
This document is page 191 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (US v. Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in and commencement of the direct examination of defense witness Michael William Aznaran by attorney Mr. Everdell. Before questioning begins, there is a brief procedural discussion regarding the timing of a sidebar to address a government objection to a forthcoming exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00016673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing the end of Professor Loftus's testimony. Under redirect by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, Loftus confirms her testimony would remain unchanged regardless of which side called her. Following her excusal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Michael Aznaran.
DOJ-OGR-00016623.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of the next witness. Mr. Everdell indicates the next witness will be either Richard Barnett or Michael Aznaran from Customs and Border Protection, after which the court takes a 45-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.
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