Appellate Division
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-12-01 | N/A | Appellate Division finding regarding Conrad's conduct. | New York (First Department) | View |
EFTA00013801.pdf
This document is a legal rebuttal from Kirkland & Ellis LLP regarding the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The defense argues that the DOJ's review was not independent, alleges prosecutorial misconduct regarding victim notification and the selection of victim representatives (citing a conflict of interest involving an AUSA's boyfriend), and disputes the government's characterization of the sexual conduct. The document also details the defense's objections to the government's threat to terminate the agreement if Epstein did not comply with unilaterally modified terms by June 2, 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00000549.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in which a speaker, Mr. Weinberg, discusses the legal history of his client, Mr. Epstein's, sex offender classification. Weinberg argues that Epstein has complied with all registration requirements, noting his principal residence is the Virgin Islands where he is a tier 1 offender, and that an attempt to register in New Mexico was deemed unnecessary by that state.
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
DOJ-OGR-00009257.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial *United States v. Daugerdas* (Feb 15, 2012), likely filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) to challenge the credibility of a juror (Catherine Conrad). The transcript details the cross-examination of Conrad regarding her suspension from the practice of law, her history of alcoholism, and her failure to disclose these facts to the court (specifically Judge Pauley). Several exhibits (PMD 14, 17, and 20) confirming her disciplinary history and medical issues are admitted into evidence during the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial *United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas* (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN / Document 616-1), dated February 15, 2012. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely a former juror, Catherine Conrad), who is being questioned about discrepancies in her stated residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) and potential bias. This document was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330), likely by the defense to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct and false statements during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010123.jpg
This document is a Westlaw printout of a 2010 New York Supreme Court Appellate Division decision (Matter of Catherine M. Conrad). It details the disciplinary proceedings against attorney Catherine M. Conrad, ruling that her immediate reinstatement to the bar was not warranted due to alcohol dependence and a failure to cooperate with previous investigations. The document appears to be an exhibit (A-5840) filed in a later case (Case 1:20-cv-00888), likely as legal precedent or evidence regarding attorney conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010084.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00083-AJN) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about whether a legal brief she was involved with misleadingly suggested that her team only learned of an Appellate Division suspension report regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial) after receiving a letter or juror note. Edelstein admits the brief might convey that impression but denies any intent to mislead.
DOJ-OGR-00010078.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a deposition (Case 1:20-cv-00335-AJN) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the witness discovering that an individual named Catherine Conrad was a suspended lawyer by searching Google and the New York State Bar Association website. The witness confirms finding a 2010 Appellate Division order and verifying an address in the Bronx/Parkview Drive.
DOJ-OGR-00010074.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report, a Bronxville address, and the identification of Robert Conrad (an immigration judge) as the father of Catherine Conrad and 'head of household.' The witness also acknowledges seeing email traffic referencing Robert Conrad later in the process.
DOJ-OGR-00010073.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the investigation into 'Juror No. 1' (identified as Catherine M. Conrad), specifically regarding her voir dire responses and a suspension report found via Westlaw. The witness discusses receiving a memo from David Benhamou while in San Francisco that detailed these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022, where a witness named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a legal brief. The questioning centers on whether Edelstein was aware that her colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, had already investigated an individual named Catherine Conrad before the final version of the brief was written. The testimony references specific passages from the brief concerning Conrad's credibility and the justification for the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009407.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript involving the questioning of a witness named Edelstein by Mr. Okula. The testimony centers on the drafting of a legal brief submitted for a new trial motion, specifically regarding when the defense team (Edelstein and Susan Brune) learned about an Appellate Division report relative to receiving a government letter. The questioning also highlights that the brief was signed by Brune in New York and Edelstein in San Francisco.
DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Edelstein, is being questioned about a legal brief. The questioner suggests the brief creates a misleading impression about the timeline of when her side learned about an 'Appellate Division suspension report' relative to receiving a 'juror note' and a letter from Catherine Conrad. While Edelstein concedes the brief might convey that impression, she denies any intent to mislead.
DOJ-OGR-00009397.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Edelstein) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness discusses receiving a disturbing letter on June 20th from Catherine Conrad, a suspended lawyer, which contained insights into jury deliberations after a three-month trial. The witness describes discussing the letter and an Appellate Division order with Susan Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00009394.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2020. Edelstein is questioned about receiving a memo from David Benhamou via email while in San Francisco, which detailed information on 'Juror No. 1', an 'Appellate Division order', and a 'Westlaw report'. The questioning also reveals that Edelstein's partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, referred to the information as a 'dossier' and that Edelstein reviewed a suspension report concerning a Catherine M. Conrad from Bronxville.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011943.jpg
A New York appeals court upheld Jeffrey Epstein's classification as a Level 3 sex offender, designating him a high risk to public safety. The court cited clear and convincing evidence of his behavior involving underage girls, despite the limited scope of his previous Florida conviction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016465.jpg
This document is an email chain from December 6, 2018, between NY Post reporter Susan Edelman and Danny Frost, Director of Communications for the Manhattan District Attorney. Edelman questions why the DA's office sealed documents in the Epstein case rather than filing a redacted brief, accusing them of covering up facts. Frost responds that sealing is routine practice under Civil Rights Law § 50-b for sex crimes but confirms the DA's office will not oppose a petition by the Post to unseal a redacted brief.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity