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 | Meeting | The attorneys agree to confer to narrow the issues regarding prior inconsistent statements. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding / witness testimony | Direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of a witness named Aznaran regarding the interpretation of travel records, spe... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A mid-afternoon break is called during the cross-examination of witness Rodgers. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Cross-examination | Cross-examination of witness McHugh by Mr. Everdell regarding the nature and function of family o... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing/legal discussion | A discussion regarding amendments to a legal document, specifically concerning a clause about gif... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Maguire regarding Government Exhibit 935. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Admission of evidence | Government Exhibit 935R, a redacted photograph, was offered by the government and admitted into e... | Courtroom | 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 | Direct examination of witness Mr. Visoski regarding photographs (Government Exhibits 308 and 326)... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Parkinson regarding Government Exhibits 201-222. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Chapell regarding the sender and recipient information on a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Visoski by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding Visoski's knowledge of an... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of Ms. Espinosa in open court. | In open court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of Special Agent Maguire regarding Government Exhibit 929, which is admitted i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | The cross-examination of witness Espinosa concludes, and the defense calls its next witness, Ragh... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Discussion and stipulation regarding the admission of various exhibits (A-1, A-2, DH1, DH2, DH3, ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A procedural discussion during a trial regarding an objection to an agent's testimony about certa... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court session was adjourned for the day because an attorney involved in the case became ill and... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Aznaran regarding Jane's age during flights in 1996 and 1997. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys after the jury has left for the day. Topics included... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place concerning the admissibility and scope of a witness's (Annie's) testi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Admission of Government's Exhibits 801 and 801-R into evidence. GX-801 was admitted under seal an... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding the defense's inability to contact a subpoenaed witness and the t... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where legal questions are being discussed between the judge and attorneys. | Courtroom | View |
EFTA00030386.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's initial custody conditions from July 6 to July 13, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell ahead of deadlines set by Judge Nathan and her arraignment, with BOP officials noting she is receiving more access than typical inmates. The chain concludes with the prosecution seeking confirmation that Maxwell is housed in a single cell separated from other inmates for security reasons to include in a public filing.
EFTA00024788.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-10, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and MDC staff regarding the scheduling of legal calls for Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest. The correspondence highlights urgent requests for access due to court deadlines set by Judge Nathan, the establishment of a standing 10 AM daily call schedule leading up to her arraignment on July 14, and some friction regarding whether defense counsel was following proper protocols for requesting calls.
EFTA00024437.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest on July 6, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell to meet a court deadline set by Judge Nathan and establishes a schedule for daily standing calls with her defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, leading up to her arraignment on July 14, 2020. There is some friction regarding whether defense counsel followed proper protocols for requesting calls, with prison officials defending their responsiveness.
EFTA00015957.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest in July 2020. Key topics include scheduling urgent legal calls for her defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) ahead of deadlines and her arraignment, establishing a standing 10:00 AM call schedule, and confirming her housing conditions (solitary cell and separate exercise) for court filings. BOP officials note that Maxwell was receiving significantly more legal access (2-hour afternoon calls plus morning calls) than typical inmates.
EFTA00015951.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-11, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest. The emails coordinate urgent legal calls between Maxwell and her defense counsel (specifically Mr. Everdell) ahead of court deadlines and her arraignment scheduled for July 14, 2020. There is discussion regarding a 'standing legal call' at 10:00 AM and adherence to EDNY/SDNY protocols for scheduling inmate calls.
DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018352.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey) and the judge. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically clarifying which numbered massage room photos are to be admitted as evidence with redactions. Mr. Everdell also informs the court that the defense and the government have reached an agreement on a testimonial stipulation for a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson.
DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018336.jpg
This document is page 235 of a court transcript index from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the examination details (Direct and Cross) for witnesses Juan Patricio Alessi, Gregory Parkinson, and Michael Dawson by attorneys Pagliuca, Comey, and Everdell. It also tracks the receipt of numerous Government Exhibits (numbered between 201 and 721) into the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018334.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor (Ms. Comey), and Defense (Mr. Everdell) are discussing the timeline for redacting and releasing photographs and videos to the public. The Judge emphasizes the need to release as much information to the public as possible while protecting the privacy of those testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00018330.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson. Dawson confirms that an individual named Juan Alessi admitted to taking $5,600 from a briefcase to pay for his girlfriend's immigration papers. The transcript concludes with the judge adjourning the session for the night and providing instructions to the jury for the upcoming weekend.
DOJ-OGR-00018325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning concerns Sergeant Dawson's potential participation in an investigation of a burglary at Jeffrey Epstein's residence, to which Dawson responds that he does not recall. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by confusion over the correct binder of documents being used as evidence, which the judge helps to resolve.
DOJ-OGR-00018323.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018322.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a cross-examination of a witness named Dawson by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to a question about a residence, leading Mr. Everdell to request a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement by a prior witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceedings, the government attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully has several photographs admitted as evidence, and then questions Sergeant Dawson about a search. Sergeant Dawson testifies that he notified the crime scene unit, led by Greg Parkinson, to photograph and process the evidence he seized.
DOJ-OGR-00018318.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of Sergeant Dawson by Ms. Comey, focusing on items, specifically 'message books,' found and seized during a search conducted under a warrant. Sergeant Dawson confirms his and Detective Dix's involvement in locating and seizing these items from a house.
DOJ-OGR-00018313.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Mr. Parkinson, who is excused by the court to catch a flight. Subsequently, the government (represented by Ms. Comey) calls Sergeant Michael Dawson as a witness, who is sworn in and begins his direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018311.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on a specific photograph of an unidentified woman found during a search of Jeffrey Epstein's house conducted by Parkinson. Everdell establishes that Parkinson did not recall finding, nor did the government present, any other photographs or video evidence of this specific woman from the search.
DOJ-OGR-00018310.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining witness Mr. Parkinson regarding photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 234 and 245) which depict Jeffrey Epstein's desk and bookcase shelves. The exhibits are noted as being 'under seal'.
DOJ-OGR-00018309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. An attorney questions Parkinson about Government Exhibits 235 and 292, establishing that photographs of a "windy staircase" do not show any pictures on the adjacent wall. The proceedings also involve a discussion among attorneys and the judge about another piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 234, which is confirmed to be sealed.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
Jury Instructions/Verdict Form Wording
Discussion regarding wording on pages 25 and 26 of a legal document, specifically regarding 'Jane', 'interstate commerce', and statutory age limits.
Jury Instruction 44
Mr. Everdell reads a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses with prior felony convictions.
Admissibility of property records and need for an additio...
Mr. Everdell discusses with the Court newly obtained property records for Stanhope Mews, which he intends to use to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, additional factual development is needed, possibly requiring another witness, to counter the government's argument.
Timeline of Ms. Maxwell's property ownership and residency
Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title of a property purchased by Ms. Maxwell, stating the deal closed in 1997. He argues this evidence, along with witness testimony from 'Kate', proves Ms. Maxwell did not live at the property before 1996, countering allegations of events in '94 and '95.
Cross-examination regarding employment with Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the start date of his employment with Jeffrey Epstein, his hiring of Larry Visoski, their respective roles as chief pilot and co-captain, and a role swap that occurred in late 2004.
Proposed Jury Instruction on 'Dominant Purpose'
Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that a new proposed jury instruction is more accurate because it tracks case law development from the Second Circuit, specifically from Judge Rakoff, as opposed to older language invented by Judge Sand that was not based on circuit case law.
Request for jury instructions
Mr. Everdell requests that the jury be explicitly instructed that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, and that related testimony should not be considered as evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court agrees to a separate language change regarding the defendant's name.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Response to a juror's note
Mr. Everdell argues that the answer to the jurors' question should be 'no', based on his interpretation of their note and the court's instructions regarding the purpose of travel.
Scope of cross-examination for witness Ms. Espinosa
Mr. Everdell informs the court about an agreement reached with the government to not cross-examine the first witness, Ms. Espinosa, about a civil lawsuit involving Ms. Galindo and Epstein.
Redactions in documents
Mr. Everdell agreed with the Court's assessment regarding the permissibility of naming individuals not granted anonymity.
Admissibility of property ownership records
Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of records showing the O'Neills owned a property until 1997, not Ms. Maxwell, to counter testimony about her residence there.
Acknowledgement of court's instructions.
Mr. Everdell confirms to the Court that the instructions are 'Totally clear' and states that the government has been provided with copies of the '3500 material'.
Volume of evidence from a 2019 search
Mr. Everdell argues that millions of files were taken from Mr. Epstein's residence, but the government has only presented a small portion to the jury, and he wants to establish the total volume.
Objection to presenting evidence before witness testimony
Mr. Everdell objects to the prosecution's plan to show the jury photographs and a bag of costumes. He argues that this evidence should not be presented until 'witness 3' testifies to establish its relevance, expressing concern that it would prejudice the jury if the witness does not end up testifying.
Objection and procedural matters
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the jury viewing the exhibit and informs the court he has a binder for the witness and the court.
Objection to new evidence
Mr. Everdell argues that the government provided new information last week, that his client (Ms. Maxwell) was never shown these documents during her deposition, and that her testimony could be confused due to having multiple past residences.
Admitting exhibits
Mr. Everdell states he has no objection to the exhibits.
Request for updated witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Conscious avoidance jury charge
Mr. Everdell argues that a 'conscious avoidance' charge would invite the jury to convict on an improper basis. The Court responds by asking for a specific response to the argument about the defendant's lack of knowledge.
Epstein's residences in Palm Beach
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the location of Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way and a time when Epstein temporarily moved to a rental property during renovations.
Sufficiency of testimony for aiding and abetting charge
Mr. Everdell argues to the court that there is a lack of testimony to support the charge that Ghislaine Maxwell aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein by enticing 'Jane' to travel to New York, a key element of the substantive count (Count Two).
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity