DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
451 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
451 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief, revealing that it omitted key information about a 'suspension opinion' and contained inaccuracies regarding the catalyst for an investigation, which was allegedly a letter from a Ms. Conrad. The transcript suggests that another individual, Ms. Trzaskoma, was responsible for drafting the facts in the brief.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
A witness being questioned under direct examination about a brief.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Mentioned as the person who found a 'suspension opinion' and drafted the initial facts for a brief.
|
|
| MR. SHECHTMAN | Judge |
Interjects to state that the suspension opinion is mentioned in the brief.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, overrules an objection.
|
| Ms. Conrad |
Mentioned as the author of a letter that prompted an investigation.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-03-24
Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding the contents and accuracy of a legal brief.
Southern District Court (implied)
An investigation that was described in a legal brief. The witness claims it was not launched until after the government disclosed a letter from Ms. Conrad.
Brune's party
An investigation that Ms. Trzaskoma asked to be done on May 12th.
Relationships (2)
The document shows an adversarial questioning relationship typical of a court proceeding, where the questioner is challenging the witness's (Brune's) previous statements and actions.
They appear to be colleagues. Brune is being questioned about a brief for which Ms. Trzaskoma drafted the facts.
Key Quotes (3)
"You are right that the brief does not include a discussion of our having accessed the suspension opinion during the trial."Source
— Brune
(Admitting an omission in the brief during questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
Quote #1
"You claim in that brief that it was the letter of Ms. Conrad that prompted you to investigate. That was simply not accurate, correct?"Source
— Questioner
(Challenging the accuracy of the brief regarding the reason for an investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
Quote #2
"Ms. Trzaskoma drafted in the first instance the set of facts for that brief, correct?"Source
— Questioner
(Establishing who was responsible for drafting the facts section of the brief in question.)
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document