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-00016511.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge discuss procedural issues, including who will make photocopies and a request for a recess. Ms. Sternheim also informs the court about the need for a screen for an upcoming witness, potentially Dr. Loftus.
DOJ-OGR-00016510.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell), and a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach). The judge arranges a charging conference for the upcoming Saturday morning and discusses ensuring public access. Mr. Everdell then raises a logistical issue concerning the presentation of photo evidence to the jury, as they have only just received a single physical copy of the photos.
DOJ-OGR-00016507.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, seeks to admit photographs given to him by Ms. Espinosa, which were sent to her by a soap opera star named Jane. The government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, objects to the admission of these photographs, questioning their relevance to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016506.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell addresses the Court regarding the first witness, Ms. Espinosa. He confirms an agreement with the government to exclude cross-examination questions regarding Ms. Galindo's involvement as a defendant in a separate civil lawsuit filed by an individual associated with Epstein (though not an accuser in the current criminal case).
DOJ-OGR-00016498.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. The conversation covers the scheduling of a witness for testimony and the legal relevance of that testimony, which concerns who resided at a home before 1997. Mr. Rohrbach, representing the government, argues that this evidence has only "marginal impeachment value" against the defendant's prior deposition testimony regarding their move to the 44 Kinnerton Street home.
DOJ-OGR-00016497.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, related to the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The dialogue is between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell's residency in London. Everdell argues that title records showing Maxwell owned a property at 69 Stanhope Mews prior to purchasing a residence on Kinnerton Street would prove she was not living at the new location earlier than claimed, while the Court questions why a proffered attorney witness is not present to testify to these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00016496.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit property records showing the O'Neill family, not his client Ms. Maxwell, owned a property until 1997. This is intended to counter government testimony that Ms. Maxwell lived there starting in 1992, but the judge emphasizes that the key legal question is residence, not ownership.
DOJ-OGR-00016495.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell discussing the admissibility of Ghislaine Maxwell's 2019 deposition. The key issue is distinguishing between when Maxwell began living in a specific home (allegedly 1992 or 1993) versus when she officially owned it.
DOJ-OGR-00016492.jpg
This court transcript captures a dialogue between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding the timeline of Ms. Maxwell's ownership and residency at a property in the UK. Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title, stating the deal closed in early 1997, to argue that Ms. Maxwell did not live there before 1996. This evidence is intended to counter testimony from a witness, Kate, about alleged events at the property in 1994 and 1995.
DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.
DOJ-OGR-00016486.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge is ruling on a defense request to call victims' attorneys (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) as witnesses during the defense's case-in-chief to establish bias or motive. Specifically, the text highlights an issue regarding whether Mr. Glassman told a victim named 'Jane' that cooperating with the prosecution would 'help her case,' while noting the complexities of attorney-client privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00016485.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between the judge and Mr. Everdell while the jury is not present. The judge addresses several procedural matters, including a recent order denying the defense's request for witness anonymity and the late receipt of a letter with government objections. They also discuss the scheduling for a witness whose testimony involves prior inconsistent statements, with Mr. Everdell indicating such a witness would not appear until after lunch.
DOJ-OGR-00016481.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a court session where the judge confirms with counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues to discuss. The judge then adjourns the proceedings to Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00016468.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and government attorney Ms. Moe regarding the scheduling of witness list disclosures and related legal submissions. The parties agree on a timeline for actions on the following Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, with Mr. Everdell highlighting the witnesses' need for a prompt resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00016467.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, concerning case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, likely for the defense, requests anonymous protection for witnesses testifying on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, citing potential unwanted attention. The judge instructs the parties to confer on the issue and present their arguments, while the opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, states this is new information and requests time to confer and submit a briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00016466.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Judge schedules a charging conference for 'Saturday the 18th' and ensures Maxwell's presence. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell then raises a concern that potential defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or using pseudonyms due to safety or privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00016461.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. He contends that there is insufficient testimony to prove that his client, Ghislaine Maxwell, aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein by enticing a victim named 'Jane' to travel to New York. The discussion focuses on the specific legal requirements for conviction on the substantive count (Count Two) versus the conspiracy count.
DOJ-OGR-00016459.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges of enticement. Rohrbach asserts that the defendant, along with an individual named Epstein, manipulated a victim named Jane by building a relationship with her over several years, ultimately persuading her to travel to New York. The argument centers on the idea that playing on Jane's 'hopes and desires' fits the legal definition of enticement, justifying the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00016454.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring defense attorney Mr. Everdell moving for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a). Everdell argues that the government's evidence is insufficient to convict Ms. Maxwell, specifically addressing Counts One and Two (enticement and conspiracy) which rely on the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' He asserts the government failed to prove Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New York for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00016453.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the judge's instructions to the jury after the government has rested its case. The judge dismisses the jury for a five-day break, admonishing them not to discuss the case or consume media about it, and schedules the trial to resume on Thursday morning with the defense's case. After the jury is excused, defense counsel Mr. Everdell begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016452.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a sidebar conference where the Judge confirms that the Government has rested its case and that the Defense (represented by Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) intends to present a case next. The Judge also schedules the hearing of a Rule 29 motion (motion for acquittal).
DOJ-OGR-00013271.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about scheduling witnesses for an upcoming hearing. The primary issue raised is a request by attorney Ms. Menninger for the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to discuss her testimony with another subpoenaed witness, who is Jane's younger sibling. The judge also proposes several dates for the hearing to avoid interfering with jury time.
DOJ-OGR-00013270.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), government counsel (Ms. Moe), and another counsel (Mr. Everdell) about scheduling a charging conference and determining when the defense will rest its case. The parties discuss potential dates, including December 18th, and the possibility of the defense resting on the upcoming Thursday, with the timing contingent on the length of witness cross-examinations.
DOJ-OGR-00013268.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Court and various counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, announces they cannot complete a factual investigation on time and have decided not to call a witness named Brian. Other counsel then discuss the need for an updated witness list in light of this development.
DOJ-OGR-00013011.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript, specifically from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the page numbers for the testimony of witnesses Kate, Patrick McHugh, Kelly Maguire, and Kimberly Meder, detailing the attorneys responsible for their direct and cross-examinations. The document also lists numerous government exhibits (series 223R-287R, 18, 109, 702) that were received into evidence.
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