DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
953 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
5
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (court transcript/deposition)
File Size:
953 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Defendant |
Named in the case 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.'
|
| Judge Pauley | United States District Judge |
Issued a subpoena, served a subpoena, conferred immunity, had a clerk who was told by the witness she would not be co...
|
| Mr. Okula | Attorney |
Makes objections during the questioning.
|
| Ms. Conrad | Witness/Deponent |
The person being questioned, referred to as 'Ms. Conrad' by the questioner, states she is a trained lawyer, was serve...
|
| Mr. Gair | Attorney |
Asks to be heard by the Court.
|
| Ms. Sternheim |
The witness met with her six times.
|
|
| Deputy Clerk | Court official |
Was told by the witness that she would not be testifying today/coming to court.
|
| Counsel | Attorney |
Represents the witness.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | Government agency |
Plaintiff in the legal case.
|
| University of Chicago | Educational institution |
Mentioned in the context of legal training, with the witness stating, 'I'm not University of Chicago trained --'.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | Company |
Court reporting service responsible for the transcript.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2012-02-15
The witness, Ms. Conrad, is testifying under court order.
Courtroom
The witness met with Ms. Sternheim six times before the current date.
A past trial occurred, after which the witness 'Googled' the questioner.
Ms. Conrad
Questioner
Relationships (5)
Judge Pauley issued a subpoena to Ms. Conrad, and Ms. Conrad was under court order to appear before him. Ms. Conrad also told Judge Pauley's clerk she would not come to court.
Ms. Conrad met with Ms. Sternheim six times.
Ms. Conrad told the deputy clerk she would not be testifying today/coming to court.
Mr. Okula makes objections to the Court.
Mr. Gair asks to be heard by the Court.
Key Quotes (3)
"I'm not University of Chicago trained --"Source
— Ms. Conrad
(In response to a question about being University of Chicago trained.)
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
Quote #1
"I Googled you after the trial."Source
— Ms. Conrad
(In response to a question about how she knew the questioner was University of Chicago trained.)
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
Quote #2
"I will not be coming today"Source
— Ms. Conrad
(Statement made by Ms. Conrad to the deputy clerk, which is being questioned.)
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,432 characters)
Case: 1:12-cr-00224-RJS Document: 646-10 Filed: 03/22/13 Page: 105 of 767
A-5636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
February 15, 2012
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 105 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 107
1 Q. Did you know that you were under court order to appear in 1 A. I don't know how to answer that question, I'm sorry.
2 court today? 2 Q. Do you understand what rational behavior is?
3 A. Yes, sir. 3 A. I'm not a psychologist, but yes, I understand you.
4 Q. And did you know that a United States -- 4 Q. And you don't know whether that was a rational thing for
5 A. Well, there was a subpoena. 5 you to say or an irrational one?
6 Q. Did you know that a United States district judge had the 6 A. I don't know how to answer you.
7 power to subpoena you to court today? 7 Q. It might have been either one?
8 A. Probably. 8 A. I don't know how to answer you.
9 Q. Well, you're a trained lawyer. You know that the Court can 9 Q. Okay. And did you further tell the deputy clerk that you
10 issue a subpoena, correct? 10 would not be testifying today?
11 A. Yes, sir. 11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. And you were standing in front of Judge Pauley when the 12 Q. And did you understand that the government had prepared an
13 subpoena was served on you on December 20th, is that right? 13 order of immunity that when conferred by Judge Pauley would
14 A. The 20th, yes. 14 require you to testify?
15 Q. Okay. So you knew you were under court order to appear 15 A. No.
16 today, correct? 16 Q. So you had no idea that you were going to receive immunity
17 A. Yes, sir. 17 when you came here to testify today?
18 Q. And you knew that court order was lawful. In other words, 18 A. That's correct, sir.
19 you knew by your training as a lawyer that Judge Pauley had the 19 Q. You're represented by counsel?
20 power to issue that order to you, correct? 20 A. Yes, sir and it was -- yes, sir.
21 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. And it's your testimony -- have you had a chance to meet
22 Q. And yet you told Judge Pauley's clerk that you were not 22 with your counsel?
23 coming today, did you not? 23 A. Yes, sir.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. Can you point her out?
25 Q. And you would agree with me that that is irrational 25 A. Right to my left.
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 106 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 108
1 behavior, is it not? 1 Q. How many times have you met with Ms. Sternheim?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, objection. 2 A. Six.
3 A. I'm not University of Chicago trained -- 3 Q. And in the six times you met with Ms. Sternheim -- strike
4 MR. OKULA: Objection. 4 that. All those times occurred before today, correct?
5 THE COURT: Sustained as to form. 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Interesting question. How did you know I was University of 6 Q. And you came into this courtroom today not understanding
7 Chicago trained -- 7 that you were going to be immunized so that you could testify
8 A. I Googled you after the trial. 8 here today?
9 Q. After the trial, is that correct? 9 A. You're correct.
10 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Would you agree with me that telling the Court I'm not
11 Q. You didn't Google me during the trial, is that correct? 11 coming and I'm not going to testify shows a lack of respect for
12 A. No. Yes, you're correct. 12 the judicial process?
13 Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Conrad, can you explain how a person with 13 A. No, not at all.
14 legal training recognizing that they are under court order to 14 Q. Can you explain to me your thinking and telling the deputy
15 appear could call a federal judge and say "I'm not coming"? 15 clerk "I will not be coming today"?
16 A. No. 16 A. No.
17 Q. There's no rational explanation for that conduct is there-- 17 Q. Is that because you do not wish to to or for some other
18 A. Object -- 18 reason?
19 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. What kind of 19 A. I don't know how to answer you.
20 question is that? 20 Q. What was the reason for your saying to the deputy clerk I
21 MR. GAIR: May I be heard, your Honor? 21 will not be coming today?
22 THE COURT: On this question I'm going to overrule the 22 A. I don't know.
23 government. All right? She can answer that question. 23 Q. Do you know if you had a reason?
24 Q. There's no rational basis for your having stated to the 24 A. I'm not sure.
25 deputy this morning that you were not coming to court, correct? 25 Q. Do you find yourself at times doing things that you do not
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
(27) Page 105 - Page 108
DOJ-OGR-00009919
A-5636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
February 15, 2012
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 105 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 107
1 Q. Did you know that you were under court order to appear in 1 A. I don't know how to answer that question, I'm sorry.
2 court today? 2 Q. Do you understand what rational behavior is?
3 A. Yes, sir. 3 A. I'm not a psychologist, but yes, I understand you.
4 Q. And did you know that a United States -- 4 Q. And you don't know whether that was a rational thing for
5 A. Well, there was a subpoena. 5 you to say or an irrational one?
6 Q. Did you know that a United States district judge had the 6 A. I don't know how to answer you.
7 power to subpoena you to court today? 7 Q. It might have been either one?
8 A. Probably. 8 A. I don't know how to answer you.
9 Q. Well, you're a trained lawyer. You know that the Court can 9 Q. Okay. And did you further tell the deputy clerk that you
10 issue a subpoena, correct? 10 would not be testifying today?
11 A. Yes, sir. 11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. And you were standing in front of Judge Pauley when the 12 Q. And did you understand that the government had prepared an
13 subpoena was served on you on December 20th, is that right? 13 order of immunity that when conferred by Judge Pauley would
14 A. The 20th, yes. 14 require you to testify?
15 Q. Okay. So you knew you were under court order to appear 15 A. No.
16 today, correct? 16 Q. So you had no idea that you were going to receive immunity
17 A. Yes, sir. 17 when you came here to testify today?
18 Q. And you knew that court order was lawful. In other words, 18 A. That's correct, sir.
19 you knew by your training as a lawyer that Judge Pauley had the 19 Q. You're represented by counsel?
20 power to issue that order to you, correct? 20 A. Yes, sir and it was -- yes, sir.
21 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. And it's your testimony -- have you had a chance to meet
22 Q. And yet you told Judge Pauley's clerk that you were not 22 with your counsel?
23 coming today, did you not? 23 A. Yes, sir.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. Can you point her out?
25 Q. And you would agree with me that that is irrational 25 A. Right to my left.
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 106 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 108
1 behavior, is it not? 1 Q. How many times have you met with Ms. Sternheim?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, objection. 2 A. Six.
3 A. I'm not University of Chicago trained -- 3 Q. And in the six times you met with Ms. Sternheim -- strike
4 MR. OKULA: Objection. 4 that. All those times occurred before today, correct?
5 THE COURT: Sustained as to form. 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Interesting question. How did you know I was University of 6 Q. And you came into this courtroom today not understanding
7 Chicago trained -- 7 that you were going to be immunized so that you could testify
8 A. I Googled you after the trial. 8 here today?
9 Q. After the trial, is that correct? 9 A. You're correct.
10 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Would you agree with me that telling the Court I'm not
11 Q. You didn't Google me during the trial, is that correct? 11 coming and I'm not going to testify shows a lack of respect for
12 A. No. Yes, you're correct. 12 the judicial process?
13 Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Conrad, can you explain how a person with 13 A. No, not at all.
14 legal training recognizing that they are under court order to 14 Q. Can you explain to me your thinking and telling the deputy
15 appear could call a federal judge and say "I'm not coming"? 15 clerk "I will not be coming today"?
16 A. No. 16 A. No.
17 Q. There's no rational explanation for that conduct is there-- 17 Q. Is that because you do not wish to to or for some other
18 A. Object -- 18 reason?
19 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. What kind of 19 A. I don't know how to answer you.
20 question is that? 20 Q. What was the reason for your saying to the deputy clerk I
21 MR. GAIR: May I be heard, your Honor? 21 will not be coming today?
22 THE COURT: On this question I'm going to overrule the 22 A. I don't know.
23 government. All right? She can answer that question. 23 Q. Do you know if you had a reason?
24 Q. There's no rational basis for your having stated to the 24 A. I'm not sure.
25 deputy this morning that you were not coming to court, correct? 25 Q. Do you find yourself at times doing things that you do not
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
(27) Page 105 - Page 108
DOJ-OGR-00009919
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document