Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel parties |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness 1
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gregory Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael Dawson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
colleague
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McHugh
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Professional representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Raghu Sud
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sergeant Dawson
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge (Honor)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00013961.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of witness Mr. Sud. Sud confirms he began booking travel for Jeffrey Epstein's office in 1999 and that the records being reviewed (Exhibit RS-1) cover the period from 1999 through 2006. Sud is subsequently excused from the stand, and the defense is invited to call its next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013960.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the testimony of a witness named Sud, questioned by Mr. Everdell regarding the interpretation of columns in financial records (invoices) related to Epstein between January 1999 and December 2006. The witness confirms that the records list passenger names and invoice amounts.
DOJ-OGR-00013958.jpg
This court transcript dated August 10, 2022, captures a moment in a trial where defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces 'Defendant's Exhibit RS-1'. He requests it be temporarily sealed to protect third-party personal information, a request to which the opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, does not object. The Court grants the request, admitting the exhibit under seal and allowing it to be presented to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Sud, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Sud testifies that he lives in East Windsor, New Jersey, and is the Vice President of Shoppers Travel, a full-service travel agency he has worked for since its founding in 1988.
DOJ-OGR-00013951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of Ms. Espinosa's testimony, confirming she worked at Jeffrey Epstein's Madison Avenue office but never at his homes or Palm Beach property. Following her dismissal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Mr. Raghu Sud, who is sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00013950.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Espinosa. During questioning, Ms. Espinosa states that in the six years she worked for Ghislaine, she never saw Ghislaine or Jeffrey Epstein engage in any inappropriate activity with underage girls. The page concludes with counsel Ms. Pomerantz beginning her cross-examination of the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning attorney attempts to establish the date of a prior videoconference interview between Espinosa and prosecutors. As the witness cannot recall the specific date, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, with the court's permission, directs her to a document to refresh her memory.
DOJ-OGR-00013945.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 details a short recess where the jury and witness, Ms. Espinosa, leave the courtroom. Upon returning, the Court instructs defense attorney Mr. Everdell to continue his direct examination of Ms. Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00013944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness testifies about the timeline of a relationship between Ghislaine and Ted Waitt, estimating it began around 2001. The proceedings are then paused for a 15-minute break at the request of an attorney, Mr. Everdell, after he conferred with the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00013940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa identifies Sarah Kellen in a photograph (Government's Exhibit 327) and testifies that Kellen arrived towards the end of Espinosa's employment, specifically between 2000 and 2002. Espinosa states she did not know Kellen's specific job title but observed that Kellen accompanied Jeffrey Epstein to his properties and was essentially always where he was.
DOJ-OGR-00013939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness identifies Sarah Kellen as having occupied an office previously used by Ghislaine. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between the attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Pomerantz) and the judge regarding the presentation of Government's Exhibit 327 to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013931.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa by Mr. Everdell, where she describes her role managing a calendar for approximately a dozen apartments owned by Jeffrey Epstein at 301 East 66th Street. She notes that these apartments were used to house employees, family, friends, and guests.
DOJ-OGR-00013929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness is questioned about an envelope (exhibit CE3) and a photograph (exhibit CE4). The witness identifies the person in the photograph as 'Jane' and is about to describe an inscription on it when an attorney, Mr. Everdell, interjects.
DOJ-OGR-00013928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is questioning a witness, Ms. Espinosa, about an exhibit labeled CE3. Ms. Espinosa identifies CE3 as a manilla envelope sent by a person named Jane to a Ms. Cimberly, care of Epstein & Co. at 457 Madison Avenue, but notes that the date on the postage is illegible.
DOJ-OGR-00013927.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a direct examination of a witness named Espinosa regarding headshots and an envelope. It also records a motion by defense counsel Mr. Everdell to admit exhibits CE3 through CE8 temporarily under seal to protect witness privacy, which the Court granted, allowing a witness to testify under pseudonym.
DOJ-OGR-00013926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Espinosa, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell introduces several exhibits (CE3-CE8) for identification, which Ms. Espinosa confirms she recognizes as headshots of three cast members and a group cast photo.
DOJ-OGR-00013923.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa testifies that an individual named Jane was treated as 'extra special' in their office because Jane's mother had claimed Jane was 'Jeffrey's goddaughter'. The questioning also touches upon Jane's siblings and the contact between Jane's mother and someone named Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013921.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. The testimony focuses on frequent phone calls received at the office from 'Jane's mother,' who was persistently asking to speak with Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning is interrupted by an objection from Ms. Pomerantz regarding hearsay, prompting the judge to request a proffer.
DOJ-OGR-00013920.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. The questioning focuses on a person referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane,' whom Espinosa recalls seeing in 'the office' approximately five times, starting when Jane appeared to be about 18 years old. Espinosa notes that Jane was accompanied by her mother during these visits.
DOJ-OGR-00013917.jpg
This court transcript details the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. She testifies about her first trip to Europe three years prior, during which she stayed at a residence after contacting Ghislaine for permission. The questioning then pivots to her knowledge, from her "work in the office," of whether Epstein made charitable donations, which she confirms he did.
DOJ-OGR-00013899.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. She testifies that during her six years of employment with Jeffrey Epstein's company, her primary workplace was an office at 457 Madison in Manhattan. She also states that she worked at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence for a total of about one to two weeks, but never worked at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in Manhattan.
DOJ-OGR-00013891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of a trial session where the defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, calls his first witness, Cimberly Espinosa. The witness is sworn in, identifies herself for the record, and prepares to undergo direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and clarifies that Mr. Everdell will be calling the first witness. The court then prepares to bring in the jury to proceed with the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013887.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The discussion covers procedural issues such as making photocopies, a request for a brief recess, and a request to use a screen for a potential witness, Dr. Loftus. The court resolves the copying issue and prepares to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.
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