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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Mr. Visoski regarding photographs (Government Exhibits 308 and 326)... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination, likely involving Parkinson, where a diagram of a house's foyer and staircase... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | During a court hearing, witness Ms. Chapell is questioned by Mr. Rohrbach. Government Exhibits 80... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding proposed additions to jury instructions concerning the testimony ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding / charge conference | Attorneys and the judge discuss a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of a witnes... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding whether certain materials are covered by privilege. An unnamed sp... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Visoski regarding Mr. Epstein's helicopter ownership. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Government Exhibit 212 was offered by Ms. Comey, received no objection from Mr. Everdell, and was... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | An attorney makes a record arguing why certain materials are not privileged. The court confirms i... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Direct examination | Mr. Everdell conducts a direct examination of Mr. Sud regarding his residence and employment hist... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion took place regarding jury instructions, followed by the court calling a recess. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence, specific... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding a jury's question about Count Four. The court decided to refer ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding the introduction of Fe... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Visoski regarding the layout of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Espinosa in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The witness denies seeing in... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court, with the jury not present, about the procedure for handling sealed exhibit... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Cross-examination | Mr. Everdell cross-examines witness Mr. Rodgers, directing him and the jury to view photos in evi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding jury instructions for an enticement charge, focusing on the relev... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Espinosa regarding evidence, specifically an envelope (CE3) and a p... | Courtroom (implied by context) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Visoski by Mr. Everdell regarding Sarah Kellen. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Mr. Parkinson regarding the identification of Government Exhibit 51... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A public trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) is in session. The judge confirms public access arrangeme... | court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and counsel to finalize jury instructions and correct a typographi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rodgers by Mr. Everdell. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021579.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a legal argument about whether an individual named Maxwell had supervisory authority over another person named Kellen. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge that pilot testimony and the fact that someone was present while Kellen scheduled massage appointments is insufficient evidence to prove a supervisory role. The discussion also touches upon sentencing enhancements for sex offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00021576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 31, labeled SA-400) filed on 06/29/2023. It details legal arguments regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's leadership role in the conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Moe (government) argues that Maxwell acted as the 'lady of the house' and supervised Sarah Kellen, while Mr. Everdell (defense) disputes the government's interpretation of case law regarding the supervision of other criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues against sentencing enhancements for his client, challenging the reliability of evidence like an 'unreliable message pad' and contesting the government's claim that the defendant received $7 million in 2007. The discussion revolves around the applicable sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the 2003 guidelines should be used based on the conspiracy's end date in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021571.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. He contends that a piece of evidence, an undated and unverified message pad, is unreliable for establishing the end date of a conspiracy. Mr. Everdell also argues that since a person named Carolyn was no longer a minor in 2005, the conspiracy as charged could not have existed at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00021566.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, detailing a legal discussion between a judge and attorneys. The government, represented by Ms. Moe, argues that the 2004 Manual is applicable because the offense in question continued past November 1, 2004, citing trial testimony. The judge reframes the issue, focusing the argument on whether there is a preponderance of evidence of conspiratorial conduct within the specific two-month window of November and December 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.
DOJ-OGR-00021563.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge finalizes objections, adopts the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) into the record, and begins to address the disputed sentencing guideline calculation. The judge notes the defense's position that the correct sentence is 51 to 63 months' imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00021562.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically page 17 of the session, page 132 of the filing) involving a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Judge regarding sentencing procedures. The Judge confirms the rejection of a redaction request and states that testimony from an individual named 'Kate' is relevant to the sentencing. The parties agree to delay arguments regarding offense level calculations and financial penalties until a later point in the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021561.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing a judge's rulings on objections to specific paragraphs (82, 83, and 85) in a legal report (likely a pre-sentencing report). The judge overrules objections regarding evidence from a 2005 search of a Palm Beach residence involving Epstein and sexualized massages, addresses the defendant's responsibility for victimizing additional minors, and discusses the inclusion of a victim impact statement by an individual named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a judge is ruling on several objections. The judge finds Carolyn's testimony about being paid by the defendant to be credible and overrules objections regarding the mention of a person named Kate and the characterization of the defendant having groomed another person named Jane. The judge's rulings suggest a denial of motions that were likely filed by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021552.jpg
This court transcript page, dated June 29, 2023, documents a judge overruling several objections from attorney Mr. Everdell. The judge upholds evidence against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, including testimony that she targeted a victim named Virginia, metadata suggesting she authored an essay, and the assertion that she received approximately $23 million from co-conspirator Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021551.jpg
This document is page 6 (labeled SA-375) of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's given the attorneys involved). The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the 'factual accuracy' of the presentence report (PSR). Ms. Moe, representing the government, states they have no further objections, while Mr. Everdell, representing the defense, questions the procedure for addressing their 'substantial factual objections' and whether every discrepancy needs to be resolved.
DOJ-OGR-00021550.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) concerning the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The proceedings cover the confirmation of victim notification postings on the U.S. Attorney's website. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, both confirm on the record that they have reviewed the presentence report and discussed it. Ms. Sternheim notes that co-counsel Mr. Everdell will handle objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019173.jpg
This document is an index from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the examination of a witness named Tracy Chapell, listing the page numbers for the direct examination by Mr. Rohrbach and the cross-examination by Mr. Everdell. The index also catalogs government and defendant exhibits (801, 801-R, 802, 802-R, 803, 803-R, and TC-1) that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019172.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the end of a day's proceedings where Ms. Comey (Government) and Mr. Everdell (Defense) confirm they have no further matters, leading the Court to adjourn the session until December 10, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00019171.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The judge announces to the jury and counsel that an unnamed attorney in the case is ill and needs care, leading to the adjournment of the court for the day. The judge indicates proceedings are expected to resume the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00019169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding FedEx invoices. The defense introduces Exhibit TC-1 under temporary seal pending redactions, which is admitted without objection from prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the witness is subsequently excused.
DOJ-OGR-00019167.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony concerns the verification of 'Jeffrey Epstein invoices' which were marked as Defendant's Exhibit TC-1.
DOJ-OGR-00019161.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 Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on shipping invoices showing packages sent by G. Maxwell (associated with Jeffrey Epstein's address at 457 Madison Avenue) to Isabel Maxwell and Ron Burckle. The defense counsel specifically establishes that these invoices do not show any packages being sent to a person named 'Carolyn'.
DOJ-OGR-00019159.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Chapell in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Everdell questions the witness about a specific invoice transaction sent by 'S. Kellen' to 'Carolyn' in West Palm Beach, Florida. The defense establishes that the witness does not know S. Kellen and distinguishes S. Kellen from Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019157.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The questioning focuses on a shipment document which lists Ghislaine Maxwell as the sender and Casey Wasserman as the recipient. The document also contains information linking Jeffrey Epstein to the address 457 Madison Avenue, and the questioner confirms there was no financial transaction on the associated invoice.
DOJ-OGR-00019155.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The questioning focuses on a FedEx slip, establishing that a package was sent by 'Cecilia Steen' and 'Jeffrey E. Epstein' from 457 Madison Avenue. The recipient's first name is confirmed as 'Caroline' and the destination as West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00019154.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 Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding Government's Exhibit 803-R. The testimony confirms a FedEx invoice dated October 14, 2002, associated with Jeffrey Epstein's account at 457 Madison Avenue, NY, and discusses a specific shipment picked up on October 7, 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00019152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony reveals details of a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Jeffrey E. Epstein and Cecilia Steen, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue in New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida. The questioning then begins to address invoices from Federal Express that were provided to the witness by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019150.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's location as West Palm Beach, Florida, with the recipient's first name being Carolyn.
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