Relationship Details

This document is page 14 of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, related to the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The dialogue is between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Ms. Maxwell's residency in London. Everdell argues that title records showing Maxwell owned a property at 69 Stanhope Mews prior to purchasing a residence on Kinnerton Street would prove she was not living at the new location earlier than claimed, while the Court questions why a proffered attorney witness is not present to testify to these facts.

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.

This court transcript excerpt captures a legal discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court regarding a jury's question on 'aiding and abetting'. The conversation centers on the legal requirements for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty in relation to arranging travel to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury instruction requires the travel to have a 'significant or motivating purpose' across state lines, rather than focusing solely on who arranged the transportation.

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.

This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the moment the judge thanks and discharges the jury following the verdict. Defense counsel Ms. Sternheim requests the court wait on the presentence report and explicitly asks for a court order to ensure Ms. Maxwell receives a COVID-19 booster shot.

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'.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring defense attorney Mr. Everdell moving for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a). Everdell argues that the government's evidence is insufficient to convict Ms. Maxwell, specifically addressing Counts One and Two (enticement and conspiracy) which rely on the testimony of a witness named 'Jane.' He asserts the government failed to prove Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New York for illegal sex acts.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, concerning case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, likely for the defense, requests anonymous protection for witnesses testifying on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, citing potential unwanted attention. The judge instructs the parties to confer on the issue and present their arguments, while the opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, states this is new information and requests time to confer and submit a briefing.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.

This document is page 33 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 10, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony regarding Accuser 2 and Accuser 3 might lead the jury to convict Maxwell on an improper basis because their allegations do not relate to New York law violations. The Court acknowledges the need to clarify to the jury that while evidence may be relevant to enticement charges, sexual activity in New Mexico cannot be considered as the illegal conduct charged in the indictment itself.

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.