DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
948 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
948 KB
Summary
This court transcript from February 15, 2012, documents the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is also a trained lawyer. The questioning centers on her defiance of a court order to appear, having told Judge Pauley's clerk she was not coming, and her rationale for this action which she is unable to explain. The testimony also reveals she was unaware of a potential immunity deal and had met with her apparent counsel, Ms. Sternheim, six times before the hearing.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Witness |
The individual being questioned under direct examination, addressed as Ms. Conrad.
|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Named party in case |
Mentioned in the case title 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,'.
|
| Judge Pauley | United States district judge |
The judge who issued a subpoena and court order to the witness, Ms. Conrad.
|
| MR. OKULA | Attorney |
An attorney present in the courtroom who makes objections during the questioning of Ms. Conrad.
|
| MR. GAIR | Attorney |
An attorney present in the courtroom who addresses the court regarding an objection.
|
| THE COURT | Presiding Judge |
The judge presiding over the hearing, who rules on objections.
|
| Ms. Sternheim | Counsel |
An individual, likely Ms. Conrad's counsel, with whom Ms. Conrad met six times before the court date.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | Government agency |
The plaintiff in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.
|
| University of Chicago | University |
Mentioned by Ms. Conrad in the phrase "I'm not University of Chicago trained --" and by the questioner who is apparen...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | Company |
The court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings, mentioned at the bottom of the last page.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2011-12-20
Prior to 2012-02-15
Ms. Conrad met with Ms. Sternheim a total of six times.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the legal proceedings, as indicated by the case type (United States of America v.) and mention of a U...
|
Relationships (2)
Judge Pauley issued a subpoena and a court order compelling Ms. Conrad to appear in court.
Ms. Conrad met with Ms. Sternheim six times prior to her testimony. The context strongly implies Ms. Sternheim is her legal counsel.
Key Quotes (3)
"I'm not coming"Source
— Conrad
(The questioner paraphrasing what Ms. Conrad allegedly told a federal judge regarding her court appearance.)
DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
Quote #1
"I will not be coming today"Source
— Conrad
(The questioner quoting what Ms. Conrad allegedly told the deputy clerk on the morning of her testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
Quote #2
"I'm not University of Chicago trained --"Source
— Conrad
(Ms. Conrad's response when an objection is made to a question about her behavior being irrational.)
DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,426 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAEum Document 616-201 Filed 02/24/22 Page 18 of 67
A-5636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 105
1 Q. Did you know that you were under court order to appear in
2 court today?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And did you know that a United States --
5 A. Well, there was a subpoena.
6 Q. Did you know that a United States district judge had the
7 power to subpoena you to court today?
8 A. Probably.
9 Q. Well, you're a trained lawyer. You know that the Court can
10 issue a subpoena, correct?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you were standing in front of Judge Pauley when the
13 subpoena was served on you on December 20th, is that right?
14 A. The 20th, yes.
15 Q. Okay. So you knew you were under court order to appear
16 today, correct?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And you knew that court order was lawful. In other words,
19 you knew by your training as a lawyer that Judge Pauley had the
20 power to issue that order to you, correct?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And yet you told Judge Pauley's clerk that you were not
23 coming today, did you not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you would agree with me that that is irrational
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 106
1 behavior, is it not?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, objection.
3 A. I'm not University of Chicago trained --
4 MR. OKULA: Objection.
5 THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
6 Q. Interesting question. How did you know I was University of
7 Chicago trained --
8 A. I Googled you after the trial.
9 Q. After the trial, is that correct?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You didn't Google me during the trial, is that correct?
12 A. No. Yes, you're correct.
13 Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Conrad, can you explain how a person with
14 legal training recognizing that they are under court order to
15 appear could call a federal judge and say "I'm not coming"?
16 A. No.
17 Q. There's no rational explanation for that conduct is there--
18 A. Object --
19 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. What kind of
20 question is that?
21 MR. GAIR: May I be heard, your Honor?
22 THE COURT: On this question I'm going to overrule the
23 government. All right? She can answer that question.
24 Q. There's no rational basis for your having stated to the
25 deputy this morning that you were not coming to court, correct?
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 107
February 15, 2012
1 A. I don't know how to answer that question, I'm sorry.
2 Q. Do you understand what rational behavior is?
3 A. I'm not a psychologist, but yes, I understand you.
4 Q. And you don't know whether that was a rational thing for
5 you to say or an irrational one?
6 A. I don't know how to answer you.
7 Q. It might have been either one?
8 A. I don't know how to answer you.
9 Q. Okay. And did you further tell the deputy clerk that you
10 would not be testifying today?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. And did you understand that the government had prepared an
13 order of immunity that when conferred by Judge Pauley would
14 require you to testify?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So you had no idea that you were going to receive immunity
17 when you came here to testify today?
18 A. That's correct, sir.
19 Q. You're represented by counsel?
20 A. Yes, sir and it was -- yes, sir.
21 Q. And it's your testimony -- have you had a chance to meet
22 with your counsel?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Can you point her out?
25 A. Right to my left.
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 108
1 Q. How many times have you met with Ms. Sternheim?
2 A. Six.
3 Q. And in the six times you met with Ms. Sternheim -- strike
4 that. All those times occurred before today, correct?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And you came into this courtroom today not understanding
7 that you were going to be immunized so that you could testify
8 here today?
9 A. You're correct.
10 Q. Would you agree with me that telling the Court I'm not
11 coming and I'm not going to testify shows a lack of respect for
12 the judicial process?
13 A. No, not at all.
14 Q. Can you explain to me your thinking and telling the deputy
15 clerk "I will not be coming today"?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Is that because you do not wish to or for some other
18 reason?
19 A. I don't know how to answer you.
20 Q. What was the reason for your saying to the deputy clerk I
21 will not be coming today?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Do you know if you had a reason?
24 A. I'm not sure.
25 Q. Do you find yourself at times doing things that you do not
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
(27) Page 105 - Page 108
DOJ-OGR-00009240
A-5636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 105
1 Q. Did you know that you were under court order to appear in
2 court today?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And did you know that a United States --
5 A. Well, there was a subpoena.
6 Q. Did you know that a United States district judge had the
7 power to subpoena you to court today?
8 A. Probably.
9 Q. Well, you're a trained lawyer. You know that the Court can
10 issue a subpoena, correct?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you were standing in front of Judge Pauley when the
13 subpoena was served on you on December 20th, is that right?
14 A. The 20th, yes.
15 Q. Okay. So you knew you were under court order to appear
16 today, correct?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And you knew that court order was lawful. In other words,
19 you knew by your training as a lawyer that Judge Pauley had the
20 power to issue that order to you, correct?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And yet you told Judge Pauley's clerk that you were not
23 coming today, did you not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you would agree with me that that is irrational
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 106
1 behavior, is it not?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, objection.
3 A. I'm not University of Chicago trained --
4 MR. OKULA: Objection.
5 THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
6 Q. Interesting question. How did you know I was University of
7 Chicago trained --
8 A. I Googled you after the trial.
9 Q. After the trial, is that correct?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You didn't Google me during the trial, is that correct?
12 A. No. Yes, you're correct.
13 Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Conrad, can you explain how a person with
14 legal training recognizing that they are under court order to
15 appear could call a federal judge and say "I'm not coming"?
16 A. No.
17 Q. There's no rational explanation for that conduct is there--
18 A. Object --
19 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. What kind of
20 question is that?
21 MR. GAIR: May I be heard, your Honor?
22 THE COURT: On this question I'm going to overrule the
23 government. All right? She can answer that question.
24 Q. There's no rational basis for your having stated to the
25 deputy this morning that you were not coming to court, correct?
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 107
February 15, 2012
1 A. I don't know how to answer that question, I'm sorry.
2 Q. Do you understand what rational behavior is?
3 A. I'm not a psychologist, but yes, I understand you.
4 Q. And you don't know whether that was a rational thing for
5 you to say or an irrational one?
6 A. I don't know how to answer you.
7 Q. It might have been either one?
8 A. I don't know how to answer you.
9 Q. Okay. And did you further tell the deputy clerk that you
10 would not be testifying today?
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. And did you understand that the government had prepared an
13 order of immunity that when conferred by Judge Pauley would
14 require you to testify?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So you had no idea that you were going to receive immunity
17 when you came here to testify today?
18 A. That's correct, sir.
19 Q. You're represented by counsel?
20 A. Yes, sir and it was -- yes, sir.
21 Q. And it's your testimony -- have you had a chance to meet
22 with your counsel?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Can you point her out?
25 A. Right to my left.
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 108
1 Q. How many times have you met with Ms. Sternheim?
2 A. Six.
3 Q. And in the six times you met with Ms. Sternheim -- strike
4 that. All those times occurred before today, correct?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And you came into this courtroom today not understanding
7 that you were going to be immunized so that you could testify
8 here today?
9 A. You're correct.
10 Q. Would you agree with me that telling the Court I'm not
11 coming and I'm not going to testify shows a lack of respect for
12 the judicial process?
13 A. No, not at all.
14 Q. Can you explain to me your thinking and telling the deputy
15 clerk "I will not be coming today"?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Is that because you do not wish to or for some other
18 reason?
19 A. I don't know how to answer you.
20 Q. What was the reason for your saying to the deputy clerk I
21 will not be coming today?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Do you know if you had a reason?
24 A. I'm not sure.
25 Q. Do you find yourself at times doing things that you do not
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
(27) Page 105 - Page 108
DOJ-OGR-00009240
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document