DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg
1020 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1020 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct examination of an unnamed witness by an attorney named Conrad regarding the witness's prior statements in court, where they called a defense motion 'ridiculous' and made comments to Judge Pauley about his background. The witness is largely uncooperative, frequently claiming a lack of recall, leading to a tense exchange about their motives and credibility.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PAUL M. DAUGERDAS | Named party in case |
Mentioned in the case title 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,'
|
| Conrad | Attorney |
The individual conducting the direct examination (asking the 'Q' questions). Also addressed as 'Ms. Conrad' on page 116.
|
| MR. OKULA | Attorney |
Makes objections on behalf of the witness during the testimony.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The presiding judge who rules on objections ('Overruled.', 'Sustained as to form.').
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
A judge whose attendance at Duke University and role in a prior hearing are subjects of the questioning. He is also i...
|
| Clinton | President of the United States |
Mentioned in the context of Judge Pauley being a 'Clinton appointee'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | government agency |
The plaintiff in the case 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,'
|
| Duke University | university |
Mentioned as the university Judge Pauley attended 30 years or more ago.
|
| Pacer | public record system |
Mentioned by the witness as a public record system for court filings.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2011-03-01
A motion alleged that the witness 'came into court and lied and lied and lied on March 1, 2011.'
Courtroom
Unnamed Witness
2011-12-20
A hearing where the witness made statements to Judge Pauley that are the subject of the current examination.
Courtroom
Unnamed Witness
Judge Pauley
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS' at the bottom of the document.
|
Relationships (3)
Conrad is an attorney conducting a direct examination of the witness in a court proceeding, questioning their credibility and prior statements in an adversarial manner.
Mr. Okula acts as counsel for the witness, making objections to protect the witness from Conrad's line of questioning.
The witness made statements directly to Judge Pauley in a prior court proceeding on December 20th, and later Googled his background.
Key Quotes (4)
"I don't know what "irrational" means. I'm not a psychologist."Source
— Unnamed Witness (A)
(In response to being asked if their previous statement was irrational.)
DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg
Quote #1
"Come on, this is anything in favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against the prosecution. It's ridiculous."Source
— Unnamed Witness (A)
(The witness is being questioned about this prior statement they made.)
DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg
Quote #2
"If you want another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen"Source
— Unnamed Witness (A)
(A statement the witness allegedly made to Judge Pauley, which the witness claims not to recall.)
DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg
Quote #3
"So you were being a smart ass to a federal judge, is that what you call it?"Source
— Conrad (Q)
(Questioning the witness's motivation for saying they were 'just being smart' in their comments to the judge.)
DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,891 characters)
Case 1:10-cr-00888-WHP Document 646-10 Filed 08/22/12 Page 201 of 767
A-5638
A-5638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 113 February 15, 2012
1 Q. It was irrational, was it not?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 A. I don't know what "irrational" means. I'm not a
5 psychologist.
6 Q. And would you agree with me that at least there was no
7 logical connection between Judge Pauley having attended Duke
8 University 30 years or more ago and the hearing that you were
9 present for and the instructions you were receiving on
10 December 20th.
11 A. You went there too, but I really don't know what your
12 question means.
13 Q. When you say you went there too, you mean I went there too?
14 A. Yes. I Googled you.
15 Q. And you know that I attended that as an undergraduate?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Is that responsive to the question I just asked you?
18 A. I told you, I can't answer your question, sir.
19 Q. I have now posed a different question. I am now asking you
20 to explain for us whether there's a logical connection between
21 Judge Pauley's attendance at Duke University and your statement
22 to the Court in the proceedings on December 20th?
23 A. I can't parse it down. I'm not a psychologist, sir.
24 Q. Now, then you went on to say, "Come on, this is anything in
25 favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against the
1 Q. It was irrational, was it not?
2 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 A. I don't know what "irrational" means. I'm not a
5 psychologist.
6 Q. And would you agree with me that at least there was no
7 logical connection between Judge Pauley having attended Duke
8 University 30 years or more ago and the hearing that you were
9 present for and the instructions you were receiving on
10 December 20th.
11 A. You went there too, but I really don't know what your
12 question means.
13 Q. When you say you went there too, you mean I went there too?
14 A. Yes. I Googled you.
15 Q. And you know that I attended that as an undergraduate?
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Is that responsive to the question I just asked you?
18 A. I told you, I can't answer your question, sir.
19 Q. I have now posed a different question. I am now asking you
20 to explain for us whether there's a logical connection between
21 Judge Pauley's attendance at Duke University and your statement
22 to the Court in the proceedings on December 20th?
23 A. I can't parse it down. I'm not a psychologist, sir.
24 Q. Now, then you went on to say, "Come on, this is anything in
25 favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against the
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 114
1 prosecution. It's ridiculous." Now, what were you trying to
2 get at when you said "this is anything in favor of the
3 defendants"?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Well, what you were trying to get at is --
6 A. Are you testifying for me, sir?
7 Q. What you were trying to get at, ma'am, you thought that
8 anything that might be in favor of the defendants would be
9 ridiculous, is that correct?
10 A. Absolutely not.
11 Q. Because you had decided that they were fricken crooks,
12 isn't that correct?
13 A. Absolutely not.
14 Q. You haven't decided that?
15 A. Absolutely not.
16 Q. Did you think -- and when you said and they brought the
17 motion against the prosecution did you think that Judge Pauley
18 was unaware of who filed the motion and who was responding to
19 the motion concerning the request for a new trial?
20 A. You have to break that question down for me, because Pacer
21 is a public record, sir.
22 Q. Can you explain to me what the fact that Pacer is a public
23 record has to do with the question of whether Judge Pauley
24 would know who filed the motion?
25 A. Of course. It's a matter of public record and it's what's
1 prosecution. It's ridiculous." Now, what were you trying to
2 get at when you said "this is anything in favor of the
3 defendants"?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Well, what you were trying to get at is --
6 A. Are you testifying for me, sir?
7 Q. What you were trying to get at, ma'am, you thought that
8 anything that might be in favor of the defendants would be
9 ridiculous, is that correct?
10 A. Absolutely not.
11 Q. Because you had decided that they were fricken crooks,
12 isn't that correct?
13 A. Absolutely not.
14 Q. You haven't decided that?
15 A. Absolutely not.
16 Q. Did you think -- and when you said and they brought the
17 motion against the prosecution did you think that Judge Pauley
18 was unaware of who filed the motion and who was responding to
19 the motion concerning the request for a new trial?
20 A. You have to break that question down for me, because Pacer
21 is a public record, sir.
22 Q. Can you explain to me what the fact that Pacer is a public
23 record has to do with the question of whether Judge Pauley
24 would know who filed the motion?
25 A. Of course. It's a matter of public record and it's what's
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 115
1 filed in the court, sir. Everyone can look it up. It's a
2 matter of public record.
3 Q. And in your judgment the motion was ridiculous, is that
4 what you meant to convey?
5 A. I don't recall, no. I don't recall.
6 Q. Well, when you said it was ridiculous, what did you mean?
7 A. I don't recall.
8 Q. Well, did you mean that you thought there was no merit to
9 it?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. I mean, you know there's merit to it, right?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Do you know -- I'm not asking about your recall right now,
14 I'm asking you whether or not there is merit to a motion that
15 said you came into court and lied and lied and lied on March 1,
16 2011.
17 MR. OKULA: Objection to the form, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
19 Q. So you don't know why you said it was ridiculous?
20 A. You're correct. I'm not a psychologist.
21 Q. Now, when you went on to tell Judge Pauley "If you want
22 another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen" -- do
23 you remember saying that?
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. So you do not remember saying that?
1 filed in the court, sir. Everyone can look it up. It's a
2 matter of public record.
3 Q. And in your judgment the motion was ridiculous, is that
4 what you meant to convey?
5 A. I don't recall, no. I don't recall.
6 Q. Well, when you said it was ridiculous, what did you mean?
7 A. I don't recall.
8 Q. Well, did you mean that you thought there was no merit to
9 it?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. I mean, you know there's merit to it, right?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Do you know -- I'm not asking about your recall right now,
14 I'm asking you whether or not there is merit to a motion that
15 said you came into court and lied and lied and lied on March 1,
16 2011.
17 MR. OKULA: Objection to the form, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
19 Q. So you don't know why you said it was ridiculous?
20 A. You're correct. I'm not a psychologist.
21 Q. Now, when you went on to tell Judge Pauley "If you want
22 another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen" -- do
23 you remember saying that?
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. So you do not remember saying that?
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 116
1 A. If it's in the record, I probably did say that, sir.
2 Q. Okay, so it's in the record. So why did you say it?
3 A. Probably just being smart.
4 Q. Just being smart.
5 A. Smart a-s-s.
6 Q. So you were being a smart ass to a federal judge, is that
7 what you call it?
8 A. If you need to say it that way, that's your words, not
9 mine.
10 Q. Okay, well, let me ask you this: Are you under the
11 impression that the President of the United States is named
12 Clinton?
13 A. I Googled -- no. Please, stop. No.
14 Q. Why did you refer to another Clinton appointment?
15 A. Because I Googled the judge after the trial was over and I
16 saw he was a Clinton appointee. End of story. Why don't we
17 get on to the meat of this?
18 Q. Ms. Conrad, can you explain for us the connection between
19 Judge Pauley ordering you to appear for a hearing on
20 February 15th and the prospect that Judge Pauley would receive
21 another appointment to the bench from somebody --
22 A. No.
23 Q. -- who is not President?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that in the common parlance that
1 A. If it's in the record, I probably did say that, sir.
2 Q. Okay, so it's in the record. So why did you say it?
3 A. Probably just being smart.
4 Q. Just being smart.
5 A. Smart a-s-s.
6 Q. So you were being a smart ass to a federal judge, is that
7 what you call it?
8 A. If you need to say it that way, that's your words, not
9 mine.
10 Q. Okay, well, let me ask you this: Are you under the
11 impression that the President of the United States is named
12 Clinton?
13 A. I Googled -- no. Please, stop. No.
14 Q. Why did you refer to another Clinton appointment?
15 A. Because I Googled the judge after the trial was over and I
16 saw he was a Clinton appointee. End of story. Why don't we
17 get on to the meat of this?
18 Q. Ms. Conrad, can you explain for us the connection between
19 Judge Pauley ordering you to appear for a hearing on
20 February 15th and the prospect that Judge Pauley would receive
21 another appointment to the bench from somebody --
22 A. No.
23 Q. -- who is not President?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that in the common parlance that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (29) Page 113 - Page 116
DOJ-OGR-00009921
DOJ-OGR-00009921
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document