DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
425 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal transcript
File Size:
425 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Okula | Attorney |
Examining the witness
|
| Ms. Edelstein | Witness |
Being examined by Mr. Okula; identified as 'THE WITNESS'
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as someone who knew facts at the firm
|
|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned as someone who knew facts at the firm
|
|
| Catherine Conrad |
Subject of a letter mentioned in the questioning
|
|
| The Witness | Witness |
Responding to questions (identified as Ms. Edelstein)
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, asking if there's anything further and excusing the witness
|
| Judge | Judge |
Addressed by Mr. Okula
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Court reporting service for the proceeding
|
| government | Government Agency |
Mentioned in relation to a 'government note' and potentially calling the next witness
|
Timeline (1 events)
Examination of Ms. Edelstein by Mr. Okula regarding the firm's knowledge of facts related to a government note and a Catherine Conrad letter, and the ethical implications of a motion decision. The witness is excused at the end of the excerpt.
Southern District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location of the court where the reporters operate
|
Relationships (4)
Mr. Okula is examining Ms. Edelstein as a witness in a legal proceeding.
They are implied to be colleagues at the same 'firm' who knew certain facts together.
They are implied to be colleagues at the same 'firm' who knew certain facts together.
Ms. Edelstein's firm had knowledge related to a letter concerning Catherine Conrad.
Key Quotes (6)
"I find this a difficult question to answer trying to put out of my mind all the things I now know and where we are. I firmly believe that the standard is actual knowledge. We just didn't know they were the same person."Source
— THE WITNESS
(Response to a question about being comfortable with a judge deciding a motion without knowing certain facts.)
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
Quote #1
"Yes."Source
— THE WITNESS
(Response to Mr. Okula's question about whether she would have felt comfortable that her obligations were fulfilled if the Court decided a motion without learning facts concerning the Catherine Conrad letter.)
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
Quote #2
"Nothing further, Judge."Source
— MR. OKULA
(Indicating the end of his questioning of the witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
Quote #3
"Anything further?"Source
— THE COURT
(Asking if there are more questions for the witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
Quote #4
"You are excused, Ms. Edelstein."Source
— THE COURT
(Dismissing the witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
Quote #5
"Would the government call its next witness."Source
— THE COURT
(Directing the next step in the proceeding after excusing the current witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
Quote #6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document