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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Disclosure of evidence | The government provided new information/documents to Mr. Everdell's team. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness discussion | Discussion about a witness coming from the U.K. who cannot be present until Monday. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Instruction | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-12-26 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference and jury service | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-22 | N/A | Deadline for Government to submit updated witness list to the Defense and the Court. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-16 | N/A | Potential date for charging conference. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Mr. Everdell explains why a bequest from an estate in bankruptcy, though di... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sent... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge overrules several objections made by Mr. Everdell regarding evidence and testimony agains... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the evidence for a conspiracy charge. Mr. Everdell argues that a ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Meeting | A court proceeding where objections regarding victims and the defendant's finances were discussed. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding sentencing guidelines in Case 22-1426. The court confirmed an i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss sentencing factors, guidelines, and e... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the applicability of the 2004 Manual based on the timeline ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A judge (THE COURT) is issuing rulings on objections raised by an attorney (MR. EVERDELL) regardi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to resolve factual objections and determine the correct sentencing guideline c... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the interpretation of pilot testimony about Maxwell's super... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | N/A | Court hearing (likely appeal record filing date, actual hearing earlier) regarding Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District (Court) | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court filing date for Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell Appeal). The transcript records a pr... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | N/A | Court Hearing (Appeal or Sentencing related) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | The court and counsel discuss a note from the jury about ending deliberations for the day and a p... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court hearing | A court hearing (voir dire) to discuss the suitability of a potential juror, focusing on his ques... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2023-02-28 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding how to respond to a jury's question about ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018557.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of Special Agent Maguire by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The testimony serves to authenticate Government Exhibit 929, a photograph of a dressing room and a safe found during a search of a residence. After Maguire confirms the photograph's accuracy and describes its contents, the exhibit is admitted into evidence by the court without objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018556.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of Special Agent Maguire. The government attorney, Ms. Moe, questions Maguire about Government Exhibit 926, a photograph of CDs seized by the FBI from a closet on a fifth floor. Maguire confirms the CDs were marked as evidence Item 1B-63, and the court admits the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about admitting evidence. An attorney, Ms. Moe, successfully argues for admitting Government Exhibit 925 under seal because it contains identifying information of third parties, while a redacted version, Exhibit 925-R, is admitted as a public exhibit for the jury to review. The transcript also briefly mentions that FBI personnel were responsible for placing labels on binders related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00018551.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Maguire. The questioning, led by government counsel Ms. Moe, concerns binders found during a search, which are depicted in photographic exhibits. After conferring with opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe amends her request to admit evidence, withdrawing Exhibit 914 and successfully moving to admit Exhibits 925 and 925-R without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018549.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of Special Agent Maguire by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on identifying a 'massage room' and a wooden shelving unit depicted in Government Exhibits 917-R and 928-R. Both exhibits are received into evidence without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018548.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Maguire by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on the identification and admission of Government Exhibits 904-R and 917-R, which serve as photographic evidence of a massage room containing a massage table and a doorway leading to an adjoining bathroom. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell offers no objections to the evidence, and the Court admits the exhibits for publication.
DOJ-OGR-00018546.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Maguire by prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admission of Government Exhibits 902-R and 903-R, which are identified as photographs of an entryway and the interior of a 'massage room.' Defense attorney Mr. Everdell offers no objections to the admission of these exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00018544.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents the direct examination of a witness named Maguire. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, introduces a photograph of a blue spiral staircase (Government Exhibit 915-R), which the witness identifies and confirms is an accurate depiction. The exhibit is then admitted into evidence by the court without objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018535.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding Exhibit 913, which contains photos of children and other individuals found on a desk; the parties agree to file it under seal due to privacy interests. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the government calls Special Agent Kelly Maguire as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018532.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of a schoolgirl outfit as evidence. The prosecution argues the outfit corroborates a witness's testimony about Epstein's 'practice' of asking people to wear such costumes. The defense, represented by Mr. Everdell, contends the evidence is highly prejudicial, based on a single witness, and insufficient to establish a pattern, a position with which the judge seems to agree.
DOJ-OGR-00018529.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument over the admissibility of photo exhibits dated from 2019. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues the photos demonstrate Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preference for schoolgirls, while the defense (Mr. Everdell) and the Judge question the relevance given the time gap and location discrepancies (New York vs. Palm Beach) relative to the charged conspiracy. The text mentions testimony from a witness named 'Kate' regarding schoolgirl outfits.
DOJ-OGR-00018527.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 raises an objection regarding the admissibility of exhibits 919 and 920 (photographs of schoolgirl outfits) intended to be introduced by the next witness, Kelly Maguire. Everdell argues that although 'Witness 3' (Kate) described wearing such outfits, she did not identify these specific photos during her testimony, lacking the proper legal foundation required for admission, similar to a previous situation with a witness named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00018525.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Witness McHugh testifies regarding the authenticity of Government Exhibit 507, identified as a JP Morgan account signature card. The witness confirms comparing the exhibit against internal bank records, and the Court admits the exhibit into evidence without objection before excusing the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018516.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on the financial trail of a 2007 helicopter purchase, specifically a $7.4 million transfer from an account associated with Jeffrey Epstein to one held by Ghislaine Maxwell. These funds were then allegedly moved through an entity called Air Ghislaine to pay the manufacturer, Sikorsky.
DOJ-OGR-00018511.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on Government Exhibit 506, which is identified as a signature card for a bank account ending in 4324. The questioner establishes a link between this account and the company Air Ghislaine Inc., while attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell interject to clarify details about the exhibit for the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018505.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh by an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding the typical functions of a 'family office' in managing the finances of wealthy individuals. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, repeatedly objects to the questions, which probe whether wealthy clients personally control their accounts or cede that control to the family office.
DOJ-OGR-00018504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Mr. McHugh's familiarity with the concept of a 'family office'. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, with the court sustaining at least one of her objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018495.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named McHugh. Under questioning, McHugh explains that instructions for transactions, such as the purchase of a green helicopter, are provided by the client. He explicitly denies any personal involvement in the accounts or transactions being discussed and also denies ever having any interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018490.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness McHugh) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses on financial records, specifically 'Government Exhibit 502,' which is a premiere checking account statement belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell at the address of the 'New York Strategy Group.' The prosecution attempts to ask about a $5 million wire transfer to Maxwell dated September 18, 2002, but the defense (Mr. Everdell) successfully objects to the question as leading.
DOJ-OGR-00018487.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents the direct examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh. The testimony establishes that on October 19, 1999, an account belonging to the Financial Trust Company, Inc., whose president was Jeffrey Epstein, wired $18.3 million to Ghislaine Maxwell. The document records objections from an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and a request from another attorney, Ms. Moe, to display an exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00018483.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of witness Mr. McHugh by Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on the admission of several government exhibits and specifically examines Exhibit 509, a 'Morgan account corporate partnership information application page' for an entity named 'Financial Trust Company, Inc.' The witness confirms that the contact person listed for this account is Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018469.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and three attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach, and Ms. Pomerantz) regarding an objection to having an agent testify about exhibits. The discussion clarifies that the agent in question is the one who conducted a search, not the current witness, after which the judge concludes the matter and calls for the witness and jury to enter.
DOJ-OGR-00018460.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms with the court and opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, an agreement regarding the '900 series' of exhibits. Following this, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins to make a request for the court to order the government to disclose certain information.
DOJ-OGR-00016893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and government counsel (Ms. Moe). The core issue is the admissibility of a deposition from Ms. Maxwell, which the government wishes to use to rebut a 'last minute' issue raised by the defense concerning Kinnerton Street property records. The defense offers to stipulate to the property records to avoid the deposition being entered and to negate the need for an additional witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016892.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. Mr. Everdell discusses his intent to use newly acquired property records for Stanhope Mews to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, further factual development, and possibly an additional witness, is necessary to counter the government's claims.
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