DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
474 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript excerpt
File Size:
474 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing arguments made by MS. DAVIS regarding defendant Mr. Parse. MS. DAVIS asserts overwhelming evidence of Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, specifically mentioning his role in backdated transactions and the relevance of his CPA background. The transcript also references testimony from Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, and communications related to the case after a jury verdict.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Conrad |
Author of a letter to the government after the verdict
|
|
| Mr. Shechtman |
Characterizing actions as wanting to hide mistakes
|
|
| Susan Brune |
Testified in court
|
|
| Laurie Edelstein |
Testified in court
|
|
| MS. DAVIS | Attorney/Speaker |
Addressing the Court, presenting arguments regarding Mr. Parse's criminal involvement
|
| Mr. Parse | Defendant |
Accused of criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, involved in backdated transactions, has a back...
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by MS. DAVIS, asked a question to MS. DAVIS
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| IRS | Government agency |
Obstructed by defendant Parse
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Reporting service for the court proceedings
|
Timeline (4 events)
An acknowledgment was made at a hearing.
A jury verdict occurred.
Court
jury
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Part of the name of the reporting company, implying the court's jurisdiction
|
Relationships (4)
They both testified in the same context, suggesting they are part of the same legal team or involved in the same aspect of the case.
Mr. Parse is accused of 'criminal involvement in the corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS'.
Mr. Parse is referred to as 'defendant Parse' in a court proceeding.
MS. DAVIS addresses 'Your Honor' and responds to the Court's questions.
Key Quotes (4)
"Would you address the prejudice prong."Source
— THE COURT
(A question posed to MS. DAVIS during the proceedings.)
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
Quote #1
"Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud count."Source
— MS. DAVIS
(MS. DAVIS's response to the Court's question, asserting strong evidence against Mr. Parse.)
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
Quote #2
"The defense conceded in its papers that Mr. Parse was involved in the backdated transactions. We think backdated transactions is a perfectly adequate description of them."Source
— MS. DAVIS
(MS. DAVIS discussing Mr. Parse's admitted involvement in backdated transactions.)
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
Quote #3
"We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his"Source
— MS. DAVIS
(MS. DAVIS arguing the relevance of Mr. Parse's CPA background to his intent.)
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,620 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 78 of 117
A-5921
A-5921
19
CAC3PARC
1 of this after the receipt of the jury -- of Ms. Conrad's letter
2 to the government in May after the verdict. And worse, even in
3 the conference calls with the Court, they continued to make it
4 appear and resist the Court and the government learning that
5 knowledge.
6 Mr. Shechtman seems to want to characterize this as
7 them wanting to hide their mistakes. But it's quite clear, and
8 Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein testified, we would not have
9 told this Court but for the Court pressing. That to me speaks
10 of a decision made early on and continuing through the briefing
11 that they wanted the juror on the panel, but they wanted the
12 Court not to know exactly what they knew because they
13 understood, and as was acknowledged at the hearing, that that
14 was damaging to their client.
15 THE COURT: Would you address the prejudice prong.
16 MS. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe
17 that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming
18 evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the
19 corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud
20 count. The defense conceded in its papers that Mr. Parse was
21 involved in the backdated transactions. We think backdated
22 transactions is a perfectly adequate description of them.
23 We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's
24 background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case
25 law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009497
CAC3PARC
1 of this after the receipt of the jury -- of Ms. Conrad's letter
2 to the government in May after the verdict. And worse, even in
3 the conference calls with the Court, they continued to make it
4 appear and resist the Court and the government learning that
5 knowledge.
6 Mr. Shechtman seems to want to characterize this as
7 them wanting to hide their mistakes. But it's quite clear, and
8 Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein testified, we would not have
9 told this Court but for the Court pressing. That to me speaks
10 of a decision made early on and continuing through the briefing
11 that they wanted the juror on the panel, but they wanted the
12 Court not to know exactly what they knew because they
13 understood, and as was acknowledged at the hearing, that that
14 was damaging to their client.
15 THE COURT: Would you address the prejudice prong.
16 MS. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe
17 that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming
18 evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the
19 corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud
20 count. The defense conceded in its papers that Mr. Parse was
21 involved in the backdated transactions. We think backdated
22 transactions is a perfectly adequate description of them.
23 We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's
24 background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case
25 law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009497
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document