DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
451 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
451 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune | Witness |
Mentioned at the top of the transcript as the person under 'direct' examination.
|
| Ms. Trzaskoma |
Discussed in the testimony regarding her actions and intent in submitting a letter to the Court.
|
|
| Ms. Conrad |
Mentioned as the sender of a letter that marked the beginning of the witness's knowledge on a certain matter.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Westlaw | Company |
A 'Westlaw opinion' was attached to a letter submitted to the court.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The court reporting agency that created the transcript, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
| The Court | Government agency |
Mentioned throughout as the recipient of letters and briefs, and the entity allegedly being misled.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A trial that had concluded prior to the events being discussed.
The Court
July 21st
Relationships (2)
Brune is defending Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and intentions regarding a letter submitted to the court, referring to her as part of a collective 'we'.
Brune's side received a letter from Ms. Conrad which was a key piece of information in their legal filings.
Key Quotes (3)
"I don't believe Ms. Trzaskoma was trying to mislead the Court."Source
— Brune (A.)
(The witness's response to the questioner's suggestion that Ms. Trzaskoma was trying to mislead the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
Quote #1
"In your brief you told this Court and painted a picture like the beginning of your knowledge was the letter from Ms. Conrad."Source
— Questioner (Q.)
(The questioner challenging the witness about the content of a brief they submitted.)
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
Quote #2
"I believe that it's true that our knowledge came after we received the letter. That's what the brief was intended to"Source
— Brune (A.)
(The witness confirming that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter, which was the point of their brief.)
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,534 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 70 of 130
A-5755
A-5755
C2grdau2
Brune - direct
298
1 attached that to your July 21st letter, correct?
2 A. When we submitted the letter, as she had promised to do, we
3 certainly attached the Westlaw opinion.
4 Q. That was a fact that had come to light, correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. She's telling the Court, we were not aware of them, clearly
7 trying to imply that you all found this well after the trial
8 was over, correct?
9 A. I don't think that's what she meant to imply at all. I
10 think what she is saying is that we were going to submit a
11 letter and the plan was then to submit a letter laying it out,
12 which is what we did.
13 I don't believe Ms. Trzaskoma was trying to mislead
14 the Court. I think she was not as precise as she should have
15 been, and she would have done better to say we are going to
16 submit a letter, but I don't believe she was trying to mislead
17 the Court. Indeed, we laid it out in the letter.
18 Q. Let me stop you there. You are so far beyond the question
19 that I asked that I would like to get us back on track, if I
20 could. In your brief you told this Court and painted a picture
21 like the beginning of your knowledge was the letter from Ms.
22 Conrad. You omitted everything that had happened prior to
23 that, correct?
24 A. I believe that it's true that our knowledge came after we
25 received the letter. That's what the brief was intended to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
Brune - direct
298
1 attached that to your July 21st letter, correct?
2 A. When we submitted the letter, as she had promised to do, we
3 certainly attached the Westlaw opinion.
4 Q. That was a fact that had come to light, correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. She's telling the Court, we were not aware of them, clearly
7 trying to imply that you all found this well after the trial
8 was over, correct?
9 A. I don't think that's what she meant to imply at all. I
10 think what she is saying is that we were going to submit a
11 letter and the plan was then to submit a letter laying it out,
12 which is what we did.
13 I don't believe Ms. Trzaskoma was trying to mislead
14 the Court. I think she was not as precise as she should have
15 been, and she would have done better to say we are going to
16 submit a letter, but I don't believe she was trying to mislead
17 the Court. Indeed, we laid it out in the letter.
18 Q. Let me stop you there. You are so far beyond the question
19 that I asked that I would like to get us back on track, if I
20 could. In your brief you told this Court and painted a picture
21 like the beginning of your knowledge was the letter from Ms.
22 Conrad. You omitted everything that had happened prior to
23 that, correct?
24 A. I believe that it's true that our knowledge came after we
25 received the letter. That's what the brief was intended to
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009359
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document