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-00013885.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) and Mr. Everdell (defense) before the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs intended to prove a 'continuing relationship' between a witness (pseudonym 'Jane') and the defendant. The Court rules to allow the evidence, citing that it is not prejudicial under Rule 403, while emphasizing the need to maintain the witness's anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00013884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by context and LCGVMAX1 code). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that photographs sent by a witness ('Jane') to Ms. Espinosa, an employee who worked in Epstein's office daily, should be admitted as evidence to show 'Jane' maintained relationships with Epstein's circle after claiming to flee. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz counters that the evidence is irrelevant because the witness already acknowledged maintaining such relationships during direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013883.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to admit photographs into evidence that were provided by Ms. Espinosa, a fan of a soap opera star named Jane who sent them to her. The government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, objects, stating that the government does not understand the relevance of these photographs to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013882.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a pre-trial discussion. Defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of an agreement with the government to limit the cross-examination of the first witness, Ms. Espinosa. The agreement specifically prevents the government from questioning Ms. Espinosa about a separate civil lawsuit where Ms. Galindo was a defendant in a case related to Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013875.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and attorneys about a proposed stipulation. The stipulation would establish the timing of ownership for a property at 44 Kinnerton, which would then be used to argue the credibility of testimonies from Ms. Maxwell and a witness named Kate regarding when Ms. Maxwell resided there.
DOJ-OGR-00013872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of property records showing a specific property was owned by the 'O'Neills' until 1997, not Maxwell, to impeach testimony from a witness named Kate. The Judge counters that ownership does not equate to residence, noting testimony that Maxwell lived there starting in 1992 regardless of ownership status.
DOJ-OGR-00013871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) 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 testimony. The specific dispute centers on distinguishing between when Maxwell 'owned' a specific property versus when she began 'living' there (allegedly as early as 1992 or 1993).
DOJ-OGR-00013870.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the admissibility of evidence related to a property transfer. One party presents land registry records and an attorney's files to show ownership passing from 'the O'Neills' to 'Ms. Maxwell' in the 1990s. An opposing attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues this evidence is overly confusing, involves complex British real estate law, and is irrelevant to when the defendant actually occupied the property, and would therefore prejudice the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013869.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from August 2022 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Everdell explains to the Court the timeline of a real estate purchase by Ms. Maxwell from a couple named O'Neill. The records show contracts were exchanged in December 1996, the deal closed in January 1997, and the official title transfer was recorded in the Land Registry in March 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00013868.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a witness named 'Kate' is unreliable because she testified to events occurring at a Kinnerton Street property in 1994 and 1995, while land registry records show Ghislaine Maxwell did not take possession of the property until 1997. The discussion involves the complexities of UK leasehold titles and mentions the Duke of Westminster.
DOJ-OGR-00013867.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 discusses the plan to call a notary, Keith Rooney, to testify about authenticated land registry documents and records from a Mr. Grumbridge in London. The purpose of this evidence is to prove that Ghislaine Maxwell did not reside at a specific property prior to 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00013864.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. The judge provides guidance on witness testimony, confirms the preclusion of testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards, and addresses a government objection to admitting a 1996 sale agreement for a London property as evidence. The discussion involves several attorneys, including Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00013856.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a court session where the judge confirms with the government counsel (Ms. Moe) and defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues. The court is then adjourned, with the next session scheduled for Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00013845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and attorneys Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger. The conversation centers on procedural issues for witnesses, specifically the legal basis for granting anonymity and confirming that defense witnesses will be subject to Rule 615, which requires them to remain outside the courtroom when not testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00013844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion about filing deadlines. An attorney for the defense, Mr. Everdell, negotiates with the judge to move up a submission deadline to Sunday, arguing it would make a difference for their case. The judge ultimately sets the deadline for Wednesday and admonishes the attorney for not raising the issue sooner.
DOJ-OGR-00013843.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, and the judge. The conversation centers on setting deadlines for disclosing a witness list and filing a related application, with proposed dates of Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday being considered. Mr. Everdell highlights the urgency of the matter due to concerns among the witnesses involved.
DOJ-OGR-00013842.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense counsel argues that witnesses testifying for Ms. Maxwell require anonymity due to intense media attention and potential harassment. The Judge instructs the defense and prosecution (Ms. Moe) to confer, identify specific witnesses, and submit arguments if they cannot agree.
DOJ-OGR-00013841.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge schedules a charging conference for 'Saturday the 18th' and ensures Ghislaine Maxwell's presence. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises an issue regarding the defense case, stating that potential witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under name protection (pseudonyms).
DOJ-OGR-00013834.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 enticement charges. Rohrbach contends that the defendant, along with an associate named Epstein, manipulated a person named Jane by building a multi-year relationship and playing on her 'hopes and desires' to entice her to travel to New York. This conduct, Rohrbach argues, squarely meets the legal definition of enticement, and therefore the charges should stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013829.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, featuring defense attorney Mr. Everdell moving for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. Everdell argues that the government's evidence is insufficient to prove the charges in the S2 indictment, specifically focusing on Counts One and Two (enticement and conspiracy). He contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that Maxwell persuaded the witness 'Jane' to travel to New York for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00013828.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge informs the jury that the government has rested its case and provides strict instructions for them to avoid any media or discussion about the case during a five-day recess. After the jury is excused, a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013827.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a sidebar conference in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court confirms that the government has rested its case and verifies that the defense still intends to present a case. The judge outlines instructions for the jury and schedules a hearing for a Rule 29 motion (Motion for Judgment of Acquittal) to take place immediately after the jury is excused.
DOJ-OGR-00013590.jpg
This document is the final page (49 of 49) of a court transcript index filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists the examination of witness Tracy Chapell by attorneys Mr. Rohrbach (Direct) and Mr. Everdell (Cross). It also indexes Government Exhibits 801-803 and Defendant Exhibit TC-1.
DOJ-OGR-00013589.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the end of a day's session where counsel for both sides, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, confirm they have no further business, leading the Court to adjourn the proceedings until 8:45 a.m. on December 10, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00013588.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the adjournment of a trial. The judge informs the jury that an attorney involved in the case has fallen ill, possibly with COVID, necessitating a break in the proceedings. The court is recessed for the day with the intention of resuming the following morning.
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