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-00013586.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell successfully offers 'Defense Exhibit TC-1', related to FedEx business invoices, into evidence under a temporary seal. After the exhibit is admitted and made available to the jury, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and the witness is excused by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013584.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining a witness named Ms. Chapell regarding her verification of 'Jeffrey Epstein invoices.' The attorney introduces Defendant's Exhibit TC-1, which the witness identifies as invoices belonging to Epstein that were provided to her by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00013582.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on her preparation for testimony, confirming she had phone calls with the government and that they sent her three old FedEx invoices to verify. The invoices are related to packages potentially sent by G. Maxwell to individuals named Carolyn or Cardine.
DOJ-OGR-00013578.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding an invoice. The questioning establishes that packages were sent by G. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to Isabel Maxwell and Ron Burckle, and specifically confirms that no package was sent to a person named Carolyn according to the invoice.
DOJ-OGR-00013574.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Chapell) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on a shipping invoice from 'October' where Ghislaine Maxwell is listed as the sender and Casey Wasserman is the recipient, with Jeffrey Epstein and the address 457 Madison Avenue also listed on the document. The defense specifically establishes that this invoice does not contain any transaction involving a recipient named 'Carolyn'.
DOJ-OGR-00013572.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Chapell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a FedEx package sent from 457 Madison Avenue listing 'Cecilia Steen' and 'Jeffrey E. Epstein' as the senders. The package was addressed to a recipient named 'Caroline' (last name withheld) in West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00013571.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell. They are reviewing Government's Exhibit 803-R, a FedEx invoice dated October 14, 2002, associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account at 457 Madison Avenue, New York. The testimony confirms a specific shipment occurred on October 7, 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00013570.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding FedEx invoices (Exhibits 801, 802, and 803) from late 2002 associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account. The discussion focuses on orienting the jury to specific pages of Government Exhibit 803.
DOJ-OGR-00013569.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony concerns a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Cecilia Steen and Jeffrey E. Epstein, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue, New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00013567.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient as a person named Carolyn in West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00013564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where government exhibits are being entered into evidence. Attorney Mr. Rohrbach questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 802 as an invoice connected to Jeffrey E. Epstein's account. The government then requests that this exhibit be placed under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00013561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the court proceedings as they resume, with the judge bringing in the jury and then allowing the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, to call his next witness, Tracy Chapell, for direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013559.jpg
A transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses a potential stipulation regarding testimony from Mr. Glassman about advice he gave to 'Jane' concerning cooperation with the government, aiming to avoid attorney-client privilege issues. The court also addresses administrative matters regarding letters submitted the previous night.
DOJ-OGR-00013545.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Counsel, including Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, address the court regarding the placement of exhibits for the jury and the arrangements for the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer. It is established that Farmer will not testify anonymously but a counsel screen will be used for her protection.
DOJ-OGR-00013544.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court. Mr. Everdell outlines his plan to introduce Federal Express invoices as evidence through the next witness, Tracy Chapell. He requests to submit the invoices under a temporary seal to allow time for redactions before they are made public.
DOJ-OGR-00013540.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript. The document also includes a list of government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013539.jpg
This document is a short excerpt from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, the judge discusses the briefing schedule with two individuals, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before adjourning the court. The session is formally adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 9, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00013537.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and the deadline for a government brief. The judge expresses a preference to hold the conference on Friday, while the government's attorney suggests filing their brief by 8 p.m. that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00013536.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of a 'charging conference' and the jury's schedule for the upcoming Friday through Wednesday. They discuss the logistics of reviewing the charge and ensuring the parties have enough time to review it.
DOJ-OGR-00013535.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the trial schedule, specifically when the government will rest its case and when the defense will begin. Ms. Moe also requests that the defense produce Rule 26.2 disclosures immediately upon the conclusion of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00013533.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Moe (likely prosecution), and Mr. Everdell (defense counsel) about scheduling the remainder of the trial. They discuss when the government's case will conclude, the defense's intention to call witnesses, and potential dates for a charge conference, specifically the evening of the 16th or Saturday the 18th.
DOJ-OGR-00013532.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot), who testifies to meeting a specific person in September 2003 and a 'Jane' in November 1996, referencing his flight logbook for verification. The witness confirms he recalls no one else with that first name on Jeffrey Epstein's planes, after which he is excused, and the court adjourns for the day.
DOJ-OGR-00013524.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning confirms that Rodgers' flight logs were previously subpoenaed and turned over to both the FBI and plaintiffs' lawyers as part of a past civil litigation, a task handled by his attorney. The name "Epstein" is mentioned briefly at the beginning of the excerpt in relation to an unnamed female.
DOJ-OGR-00013512.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony confirms the location of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way. It also discusses a specific period when the main house was being renovated, requiring Epstein to stay at a rental property located south of El Brillo Way, across from the ocean.
DOJ-OGR-00013509.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely a pilot) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness confirms a passenger named 'Emmy' flew on Epstein's planes but testifies that, according to his memory and flight logs, 'Annie Farmer' was never a passenger. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, then moves to show the jury documents marked LV4 and LV5, which are admitted under seal.
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