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
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,358 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAC Document 616-20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 129 of 130
A-5814
A-5814
357
C2grdau4
1 BY MR. OKULA:
2 Q. Do you mean to say that if the government hadn't asked and
3 the Court hadn't asked, you were comfortable from an ethical
4 and a professional standpoint to have the judge decide the
5 motion without ever learning the facts about what Theresa
6 Trzaskoma and you and Susan Brune and the others knew at the
7 firm prior to receiving the government note? Is that what you
8 are saying?
9 THE WITNESS: I find this a difficult question to
10 answer trying to put out of my mind all the things I now know
11 and where we are. I firmly believe that the standard is actual
12 knowledge. We just didn't know they were the same person.
13 MR. OKULA: Let me try again. From a professional and
14 ethical standpoint, are you saying that you would have felt
15 comfortable that you had fulfilled all your obligations if the
16 Court had decided this motion without learning of the facts
17 concerning what your firm knew prior to receiving the Catherine
18 Conrad letter? Yes or no.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 MR. OKULA: Nothing further, Judge.
21 THE COURT: Anything further?
22 You are excused, Ms. Edelstein.
23 (Witness excused)
24 THE COURT: Would the government call its next
25 witness.
C2grdau4
1 BY MR. OKULA:
2 Q. Do you mean to say that if the government hadn't asked and
3 the Court hadn't asked, you were comfortable from an ethical
4 and a professional standpoint to have the judge decide the
5 motion without ever learning the facts about what Theresa
6 Trzaskoma and you and Susan Brune and the others knew at the
7 firm prior to receiving the government note? Is that what you
8 are saying?
9 THE WITNESS: I find this a difficult question to
10 answer trying to put out of my mind all the things I now know
11 and where we are. I firmly believe that the standard is actual
12 knowledge. We just didn't know they were the same person.
13 MR. OKULA: Let me try again. From a professional and
14 ethical standpoint, are you saying that you would have felt
15 comfortable that you had fulfilled all your obligations if the
16 Court had decided this motion without learning of the facts
17 concerning what your firm knew prior to receiving the Catherine
18 Conrad letter? Yes or no.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 MR. OKULA: Nothing further, Judge.
21 THE COURT: Anything further?
22 You are excused, Ms. Edelstein.
23 (Witness excused)
24 THE COURT: Would the government call its next
25 witness.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009418
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document