Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding supplemental jury instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference between Defense and Government | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017505.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Visoski and Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on a ranch, which Mr. Everdell confirms is approximately 10,000 acres of wild country where guests hike. A significant point of discussion is the presence of rattlesnakes on the property, leading to a question about the need for proper footwear for hiking.
DOJ-OGR-00017502.jpg
This document is a single page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It shows the court going into recess after a cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. Two individuals, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, confirm to the judge that they have no matters to address before the break.
DOJ-OGR-00017501.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, suggests a break during the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, and the judge agrees, announcing a 45-minute lunch break for the jury and witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017489.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by attorney Mr. Everdell. Visoski testifies about a renovation in the mid-90s and confirms he flew on numerous flights with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, interacting with them regularly throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The questioning is pivoting to Visoski's perception of the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The witness clarifies that Ghislaine's New York residence was at 116 East 65th Street and confirms that from 1991 through the 2000s, Ghislaine maintained a residence separate from Jeffrey Epstein's. The witness also states they would pick up luggage for both Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein, but from their respective residences.
DOJ-OGR-00017465.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces exhibits LV4 and LV5 under seal to protect witness identities (pseudonyms), which is accepted by Prosecutor Ms. Comey and the Judge. The jury is instructed to view the documents in their folders without showing them to the gallery.
DOJ-OGR-00017464.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski during a trial related to the Epstein case (filed Aug 10, 2022). The witness confirms that Emmy Tayler was an assistant to Ghislaine Maxwell (starting around 1997) and that she flew on Epstein's planes. The witness also acknowledges familiarity with the name Andy Farmer but does not recall him being on any flights or knowing of any records of him flying.
DOJ-OGR-00017462.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. During the questioning, Visoski confirms that he knew an unnamed woman shown in photographs, had spoken with her frequently enough to have her phone number, and that she frequently traveled on Mr. Epstein's planes. The proceeding involves handling sealed evidence (photos marked LV3A and LV3B) carefully to prevent its display to the gallery.
DOJ-OGR-00017461.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, questions the witness about two photographs (Exhibits LV3A and LV3B) depicting a woman who shares a first name with 'Jane's true first name.' The exhibits are admitted into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of the individual, consistent with a prior court ruling regarding pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00017460.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 Visoski by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on identifying that there was an assistant in 'Epstein's world' who shared the same first name and spelling as a person referred to as 'Jane,' and that the witness had met this assistant. Exhibits LV3A and LV3B are introduced for display.
DOJ-OGR-00017459.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief exchange between Mr. Everdell and the court during the cross-examination of a person named Visoski, where the court announces its intention to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00017458.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. They agree on a method for presenting exhibits to the jury using paper copies to protect the anonymity of witnesses who may testify under pseudonyms. The exhibits in question are to be offered under seal by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017457.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell. They discuss the scheduling of the proceedings, including the timing for a lunch break set for 12:30 and the decision to take an immediate five-minute recess for the jury. The judge instructs a Ms. Williams to escort the jury during the break.
DOJ-OGR-00017456.jpg
This is page 94 of a court transcript (Document 743, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Visoski, confirms during cross-examination that Epstein had an assistant with a specific name and that he had met her. The proceedings are interrupted by attorneys Everdell and Comey to discuss a 'choreography issue' regarding an exhibit that must be submitted under seal rather than displayed on screens.
DOJ-OGR-00017455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by Mr. Everdell. The questioning centers on three flights from 1996, 1997, and 1998, and Visoski's inability to confirm whether a woman referred to as 'Jane' was on them. The witness states they cannot distinguish between individuals with the same first name from over 20 years ago, especially without last names, and acknowledges there were other people in 'Epstein's world' with that same first name.
DOJ-OGR-00017450.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a pilot named Visoski during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony establishes that Visoski flew Jeffrey Epstein multiple times to Columbus, Ohio, the home of billionaire Les Wexner. The witness confirms Wexner's ownership of The Limited (parent company of Victoria's Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch) and states that Epstein considered Wexner both a friend and a client.
DOJ-OGR-00017410.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Visoski. The proceedings cover the stipulation and admission of Government Exhibits 11 through 16 and 1004, which includes a birth certificate from England and Wales. Ms. Comey notes that these exhibits are sealed to protect witnesses testifying under pseudonyms, and the Court grants permission for jurors to view these sealed binders.
DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011671.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge outlines the protocol for showing electronic evidence to a witness who is testifying under a pseudonym, expressing concern that the material could inadvertently reveal the witness's identity to the gallery. The judge agrees to the proposed method of using limited screens, provided the government is kept fully aware and paper copies are available as a backup.
DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.
DOJ-OGR-00011659.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Mr. Everdell), and the Judge regarding jury instructions for a Mann Act conspiracy count. The specific issue involves whether sexual conduct was illegal under New Mexico law versus New York law, and the age of consent regarding a specific witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between the government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge. The discussion centers on whether the potential illegality of sexual conduct in New Mexico can be used as evidence for an enticement charge under New York law. The judge expresses skepticism about the government's approach, pointing out that the charges were not filed under New Mexico law and cautioning against confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
Jury Instructions / Case Law
Discussion regarding the use of the word 'dominant' in jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 2421, citing United States v. An Soon Kim.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
Sentencing Hearing / Fine Determination
Judge asks defense counsel to confirm their assertion regarding inability to pay fine; Judge overrules objection.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Oral argument regarding which sentencing guidelines book applies (2003 vs 2004) and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Government's legal argument on supervision
Mr. Everdell begins to address the Sarah Kellen point and challenges the government's interpretation of case law regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
Sentencing Guidelines / Dangerousness
Argument that background commentary is authoritative and defines 'dangerous' as continuously dangerous to the community, which he argues does not apply to his client.
Witness Credibility
Argument regarding the contradictions in the subject's statements about public exposure.
Denial of Proposed Questions
The Court denies the request to ask specific questions about therapy and abuse history because the defense did not propose comparable questions during the original voir dire.
Inquiry into Juror Bias
Everdell argues for the necessity of asking a juror about the nature of their therapy and abuse history to determine if it aligns with victim testimony, suggesting bias.
Jury Instructions / Evidence Admissibility
Oral argument regarding the admissibility of testimony concerning illegal acts and jurisdiction (NY vs NM).
Witness List Request
Everdell requests a witness list for the next week. Comey agrees to provide it by Saturday end of day.
Defense Witness Anonymity
Mr. Everdell informs the court that defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under protection (pseudonyms).
Jury Instructions regarding Jane's testimony
Discussion about limiting instructions for the jury regarding age of consent in New Mexico and Mann Act charges.
Cross-examination
Procedural discussion regarding a binder of evidence and mask removal, followed by the start of questioning regarding Visoski's employment history.
Clarification of 'minors' in indictment
Argument regarding Count Five, specifically the definition of 'minors' versus specific ages (17 or 18) to avoid ambiguity during the 2001-2004 conspiracy period.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity