Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A discussion between an attorney (Mr. Everdell) and the Court regarding how to respond to a jury'... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and the judge regarding a jury note ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court proceeding regarding the scope of questioning for a juror during voir... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell presented an argument regarding the interpretation of a sen... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding Case 22-1426 (likely United States v. Maxwell appeal or related) | Southern District Court | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court hearing/sidebar conference regarding Juror 50's impartiality. | Courtroom Sidebar | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | An attorney, Mr. Everdell, makes an argument to the court about the authoritative nature of a sen... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court proceeding | A hearing where a judge is ruling on objections related to paragraphs in a legal document. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | Attorneys and a judge discuss evidence related to a defendant's association with Mr. Epstein. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A judge overruled an objection regarding the inclusion of an asset in Ms. Maxwell's Presentence R... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss factual objections to a presentence report (PSR) before sentencing. | Court of the Southern District | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A court hearing where the judge confirms with the defendant and her counsel that they have review... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the judge rules on objections to the calculation of the sentencing guide... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A legal argument was held regarding the timeline of an offense and the applicable sentencing manual. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding sentencing factors, the reliability of evidence, and the ap... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where a judge overrules objections made by an attorney regarding evidence and ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court Hearing (Sentencing/Objections) | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding objections to a report (likely Presentence Investigation Report). | Southern District (New York) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court hearing/sentencing proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) discussing sentencing guidelines and... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding financial assets and fines in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Ma... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) without jury present. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically discussing Instr... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the government's proposed jury instructions are confusing and contrasts them with the defense's position. The argument centers on jurisdiction and the age of consent, specifically regarding 'Accuser 2' and acts committed in New Mexico that were allegedly legal under New Mexico law at the time, versus how they are treated under New York conspiracy law.
DOJ-OGR-00011641.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text documents a legal argument between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger) and the Judge regarding a witness named Kelso. The debate centers on whether Kelso will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding computer forensics and metadata, and whether sufficient disclosure has been made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg
This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00011571.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the court. Mr. Everdell argues that a bequest made to an estate currently in bankruptcy should not be considered a firm asset for the purpose of calculating fines, as the estate has outstanding victims' claims and the bequest itself is likely to be contested. He states it was disclosed on a financial affidavit out of an abundance of caution and good faith.
DOJ-OGR-00011570.jpg
This court transcript from July 22, 2022, details a discussion about victims in a conspiracy, establishing a recruitment chain where the defendant recruited Virginia, who recruited Carolyn, who then recruited Melissa. The court agrees with the government's position on this matter and overrules objections related to Carolyn's prior testimony about her age. The document also notes the defendant's objection to including a $10 million bequest from Epstein in her assets when determining her ability to pay fines.
DOJ-OGR-00011569.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on July 22, 2022, concerning sentencing guidelines. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, and the Court discuss the calculation of the total offense level, resulting in a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell, while agreeing with the calculation, formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups, an issue the Court has previously ruled on.
DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 22, 2022. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding objections to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), specifically noting the defense's argument to use 2003 sentencing guidelines versus 2004 guidelines. The text explicitly mentions that the government's sole objection to the guideline calculation is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be formally considered victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg
A page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that sentencing guidelines regarding 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' should not apply to his client, noting she has not been accused of a crime in over 18 years. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally, resting on previous written briefings.
DOJ-OGR-00011553.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, concerning Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text features arguments between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the prosecution regarding sentencing enhancements, specifically debating whether Maxwell exercised 'supervisory authority' over an employee named Kellen who scheduled massage appointments. The defense argues that Maxwell's presence in the house while Kellen worked does not constitute supervision, while the prosecution relies on pilot testimony to establish a chain of command.
DOJ-OGR-00011550.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing arguments in a criminal case. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, asserts that the defendant held a leadership role over Sarah Kellen, citing flight records showing they both traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet during the same period. The defense, represented by Mr. Everdell, begins to challenge the prosecution's legal interpretation regarding the need to prove supervision of another criminal participant.
DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing) dated July 22, 2022. The defense argues that money transfers for a helicopter and Larry Visoski holding car assets for Epstein do not prove the defendant's continued involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the financial evidence was offered to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against a sentencing enhancement, disputing the reliability of a 'message pad' and arguing that the conspiracy effectively ended in 2004, meaning 2003 guidelines should apply. The defense also contests a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.
DOJ-OGR-00011545.jpg
This is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the conspiracy charge cannot extend to 2005 because the individual named Carolyn was no longer a minor at that time (her birthday being in early January). Everdell also challenges the reliability and admissibility of an undated 'message pad' used as evidence, arguing it cannot be properly authenticated or dated.
DOJ-OGR-00011544.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a discussion about the date of a specific message, believed to be from November 2004. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues that surrounding dates on message pads, flight records, and the defendant's travel with Epstein during that time support this date. The testimony of a crime victim named Carolyn is also cited as evidence of an ongoing conspiracy, which the defendant has the burden to prove withdrawal from.
DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the 2003 sentencing guidelines should apply rather than the 2004 guidelines to avoid violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, noting that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 240 months despite a calculated range of 292-365 months.
DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.
DOJ-OGR-00011535.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on defense objections to the Presentence Investigation Report. The court overrules objections regarding findings that records from the 2005 Palm Beach search prove Epstein received sexualized massages from minors (2001-2004) and affirms the defendant's responsibility for victimizing additional minors. It also addresses the inclusion of a victim impact statement from a survivor named 'Kate'.
DOJ-OGR-00011529.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022. In it, the judge makes findings of fact, stating it is probable the defendant paid Carolyn and Virginia for bringing and recruiting other girls. The judge then overrules two objections: one regarding the inclusion of a person named Kate, and another concerning the characterization of the defendant having groomed a person named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00011526.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court hearing dated July 22, 2022, involving the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules defense objections regarding factual assertions, specifically crediting testimony that Maxwell targeted Virginia Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago and confirming via bank statements that Epstein transferred approximately $23 million to Maxwell during their conspiracy. The Judge also confirms Maxwell's authorship of a specific essay based on computer metadata linking the file to user 'Ghislaine' and computer 'GMax'.
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