Relationship Details

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.

This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge discussing procedural matters, including jury instructions for binders and the display of exhibits. The Judge also sets the upcoming trial schedule for the weeks of Christmas and New Year's, establishing daily start times (9:30 AM) and counsel meetings (8:45 AM).

This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.

This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) regarding a note received from the jury requesting office supplies, a specific transcript ('Matt's transcript'), and a definition of the legal term 'enticement'. Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the existing instruction stating that such terms have their 'ordinary everyday meanings'.

This document is page 29 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a juror's history of sexual abuse (involving a stepbrother and a friend) is relevant to establishing bias, as it may align with victim testimony heard during the trial. The Court denies Everdell's request to ask the juror specific questions about their therapy and trauma, citing that the defense failed to propose comparable questions during the original jury selection (voir dire).

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.

This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.

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.

This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to revisit a ruling to allow the defense to call FBI case agents as witnesses to question their investigative thoroughness, arguing that 'Jane's testimony' made this a live issue. The Court pushes back, citing the Second Circuit case 'Saldarriaga' and maintaining that the government's investigative techniques do not prove the defendant's innocence.

This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing for specific jury instructions regarding the definition of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'enticement' based on the precedent *U.S. v. Broxmeyer*. He proposes language stating that these elements are only satisfied if they specifically *caused* the victim, referred to as 'Jane,' to travel in interstate commerce.

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.

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.

This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a cross-examination involving 'Parkinson,' dated August 10, 2022. The discussion centers on a diagram of a house, specifically its foyer and staircase. Mr. Everdell requests to display Government Exhibits 235 and 292, which the Court approves, indicating a transition in the presentation of evidence.

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.

This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, discusses an upcoming witness from the U.K. and a declaration provided by an unnamed witness. This witness, who owns the Nags Head Pub, has direct knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell's ownership and residency at a Kinnerton Street property, having observed her presence there daily and noting her occupancy timeline. The document also includes a brief comment from MS. COMEY regarding the defense's preparation time.

This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion regarding the legal definition of the word "entice" and a procedural matter of marking a note as a court exhibit. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises a concern that Ms. Maxwell was provided an N95 mask but restricted to wearing it only in the courtroom, to which the Judge clarifies the rule applies to the whole courthouse.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.

This document is an excerpt from a court hearing on August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The discussion centers on amending a legal document, specifically a clause alleging that Maxwell, among Epstein's employees, sent gifts to Carolyn between 2001 and 2004. Mr. Everdell argues for the exclusion of Maxwell's name from this clause, citing a lack of evidence and contradictory FedEx records, to which the government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, ultimately agrees.

This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that under New Mexico law, the sexual activity in question was not illegal because it lacked force or coercion, and requests that jury instructions reflect this distinction. The Court agrees to consider how best to clarify this for the jury.

This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.

This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.

This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding how to answer a jury question concerning conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. The defense argues for repeating limiting instructions to prevent broad application of testimony, while the Court argues a simple 'yes' is the substantive answer and the limiting instruction is nonresponsive.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details procedural discussions between the Judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding jury instructions for handling binders, the display of nonsealed exhibits, and a recess. The text also outlines the court's plan for the trial schedule over the Christmas and New Year's holidays.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a delay in starting the defense's case because the government shortened their case unexpectedly, causing witness scheduling issues. The Court agrees to delay the defense case start until the following Thursday and discusses scheduling a charging conference for Friday or the evening of the 16th.

This document is a partial transcript from a criminal court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a cross-examination by Mr. Everdell, likely of Mr. Rodgers, concerning evidence labeled LV3A and LV3B, and photos depicting an unnamed individual. The Court and jury are involved in the process of reviewing this evidence, with specific instructions given regarding its handling and the non-disclosure of a person's name.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. It details the admission of several defense exhibits (DH1-DH4, J2) and a stipulation read by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the HM Land Registry in the UK. The stipulation confirms the registry's authority and authenticates documents retrieved in 2021 regarding two London properties: 69 Stanhope Mews East and 44 Kinnerton Street.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a 'bequest' listed in the defendant's financial affidavit should not be considered an asset for the purpose of calculating fines because the source estate is in bankruptcy and paying out victims' claims, making the asset 'tenuous.' The Court questions the status of the bequest and asks Ms. Moe (likely the prosecution) for a response.

A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, withdraws a request regarding Counts Five and Six due to statutory changes regarding 'foreign commerce.' The Judge works with defense attorney Mr. Everdell to specifically remove the words 'and foreign' from page 15 of the document under discussion.

This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the logistics of providing physical evidence binders to jurors while maintaining witness anonymity. The Judge emphasizes that while jurors will know witness names, those names must not be published to the general courtroom.