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.
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