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-00016586.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016585.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Sud during the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Under questioning by Ms. Moe, Sud confirms that he began booking travel for Jeffrey Epstein's office in 1999 and that the records in exhibit 'RS-1' cover the period from 1999 through 2006. Following this confirmation, the witness is excused, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell is instructed to call the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness is questioned about the meaning of fields in financial records belonging to Epstein, which span from January 1999 to December 2006. After confirming the scope of the records, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, concludes his questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00016582.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Sud, during which defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces 'Exhibit RS-1' into evidence. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) agrees to the admission provided the document is kept under seal due to the presence of personally identifying information of third parties. The Court admits the exhibit under seal but allows the jury to view it immediately.
DOJ-OGR-00016576.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of Mr. Sud by Mr. Everdell. Mr. Sud testifies that he lives in East Windsor, New Jersey, and is the Vice President of Shoppers Travel, a company he has worked for since its founding in 1988.
DOJ-OGR-00016575.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It shows the conclusion of the cross-examination of a witness, Espinosa, who confirms working at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan office but not his homes. Following this, the defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, calls the next witness, Raghu Sud, to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016574.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the testimony of a witness named Espinosa, who states under questioning by Mr. Everdell that during her six years working for Ghislaine Maxwell, she never saw Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls. Following this testimony, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and Ms. Pomerantz begins her cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00016571.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. The witness, identified as 'Espinosa', is being questioned by Mr. Everdell about a prior videoconference interview with prosecutors that took place during the summer. The attorney introduces a document (3501.063-002) to refresh the witness's recollection regarding the specific date of that interview.
DOJ-OGR-00016570.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa. The questioning by Mr. Everdell focuses on Ms. Espinosa's past employment, the departure of Ghislaine, and the management of Epstein's properties by Sarah Kellen. An objection raised by Ms. Pomerantz regarding Sarah Kellen's marital status is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00016564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa identifies Sarah Kellen from a photograph (Government's Exhibit 327) and testifies that Kellen was hired by Jeffrey Epstein between 2000 and 2002. While uncertain of Kellen's specific job title, Espinosa states that Kellen frequently accompanied Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00016563.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. The witness identifies 'Sarah Kellen' as the person who sat in the office where Ghislaine Maxwell used to sit. The remainder of the page concerns procedural discussions between the defense, prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz), and the Judge regarding the publication of 'Government's Exhibit 327' to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016557.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony confirms that an individual referred to as 'Jane,' along with her mother and brothers, regularly used apartments in New York during the late 1990s and early 2000s. The questioning then shifts to the witness's observations of the relationship and interactions between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell while working in their office.
DOJ-OGR-00016554.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Espinosa (referred to as 'Cimberly' in the exhibits), is testifying about photographs and inscriptions received from an individual referred to as 'Jane.' The exhibits (CE4-CE8) include a signed note thanking Cimberly for her help and photos of a soap opera cast where 'Jane' was employed.
DOJ-OGR-00016553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning focuses on two pieces of evidence: an envelope labeled CE3 and a photograph labeled CE4. The witness identifies the person in the photograph as 'Jane' and confirms the presence of an inscription on it before being interrupted by Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016552.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Ms. Espinosa is being questioned by Mr. Everdell regarding Exhibit CE3, which is identified as a manila envelope sent by 'Jane' to 'Ms. Cimberly' at 'Epstein & Co., 457 Madison Avenue.' The testimony discusses the physical state of the exhibit and the inability to read the postage date.
DOJ-OGR-00016550.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell questions witness Ms. Espinosa regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8, which the witness identifies as headshots of cast members and a group shot she had held onto for many years.
DOJ-OGR-00016547.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on an individual named Jane, her relationship as Jeffrey's goddaughter, and how this status influenced her treatment in 'the office' where her mother also worked. The examination also inquires about Jane's siblings and the extent of contact between Jane's mother and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00016544.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. The witness identifies a person (referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane') from a document and testifies that Jane visited the office approximately five times, appearing to be around 18 years old, and was accompanied by her mother. Attorney Mr. Everdell is also present.
DOJ-OGR-00016543.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Espinosa, testifies about Epstein giving 'Lion King' tickets to almost all employees and confirms that Epstein received female visitors at his office. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibit 12, which is under seal, only to the Court, the deputy, and the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016541.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing testimony from Espinosa. The testimony covers her trip to Europe three years prior, where she stayed at a residence after contacting Ghislaine, and questions about the residence's features. It also includes questions and answers regarding Epstein's charitable donations.
DOJ-OGR-00016523.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). A witness named Espinosa identifies Ghislaine Maxwell in the courtroom and testifies about her six-year employment with Jeffrey Epstein's company. Espinosa states she primarily worked at the office located at 457 Madison in Manhattan, but occasionally worked at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence toward the end of her employment, totaling about one or two weeks over six years. She explicitly denies ever working out of Epstein's Manhattan residence.
DOJ-OGR-00016517.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a Ms. Espinosa. She describes her current role as a senior executive assistant to a CEO and recounts her past employment history, specifically moving to New York around October 1996. Upon arriving, she was hired by J. Epstein & Co. as a legal assistant for the legal team, which included counsels Jeff Schantz and Darren Indyke.
DOJ-OGR-00016516.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa by an attorney named Mr. Everdell. Espinosa testifies that she is currently 55, lives in California, works as an executive assistant to a CEO, and establishes that she was 28 years old and living in Midtown in October 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016515.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of the defense's case, where defense counsel Mr. Everdell calls the first witness, Cimberly Espinosa. The transcript details the witness being sworn in, stating and spelling her name for the record, and the commencement of her direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00016513.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and the provision of a large volume of paper documents to an upcoming witness. The discussion concludes with the judge deciding to bring in the jury and Mr. Everdell confirming he will call the first witness.
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