Edelstein
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Business associate |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Randy Kim
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Randy Kim
|
Business associate |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Business associate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
David Benhamou
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Nardello
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Benhamou
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Co workers team members |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Benhamou
|
Superior subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nardello
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SUSAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Conversation | Edelstein's first conversation with Susan about the jury letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Edelstein. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Investigation | After receiving a juror letter, Edelstein called Nardello to assist in gathering information, whi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony/deposition | Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about the potential connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspen... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Decision-making | Edelstein and Susan Brune decided to omit certain information from a legal brief. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition | A witness named Edelstein is questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune to omit informatio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal strategy discussion | A discussion between Edelstein and Ms. Brune about what information to include or omit in a legal... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire (jury selection) where it was learned that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, had been invo... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Decision-making | Edelstein and Susan Brune decided to omit information about a juror note and a suspended lawyer f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Drafting and editing of the facts section of a legal brief. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The writing of a legal brief by Edelstein and Ms. Brune. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A discussion about whether to bring information about a juror to the Court's attention, resulting... | the park | View |
| N/A | Information sharing | Theresa Trzaskoma told the witness (Edelstein) that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition/testimony | Testimony of Edelstein being questioned about his knowledge and the timeline of an investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | An investigation was prompted after Edelstein received a letter that caused concern. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | A question-and-answer session where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the inten... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Decision making | Edelstein and Ms. Brune specifically decided what information to include or exclude from a legal ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal testimony/deposition | Edelstein is being questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune regarding the content of a l... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | Edelstein is questioned about his knowledge of Juror No. 1's identity and potential connection to... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Receipt of document | A letter written in May was received on June 20. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A witness, Edelstein, is questioned by an attorney about their knowledge of Catherine Conrad's pr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Receipt of information | Edelstein received a memo written by David Benhamou via an email link/attachment. | San Francisco | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meetings discussing jurors | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination and redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein regarding knowledge of Ju... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Edelstein discussed the disturbing jury letter with his partner, Randy Kim. | San Francisco office | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010096.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 22, 2022. In it, a judge questions a witness about their law firm's obligation to disclose information, referencing a July 21 letter. The questioning also covers the court's decision to replace Juror No. 11 during deliberations and whether the witness considered raising a separate issue concerning Juror No. 1, which had been previously discussed with a Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00010095.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 20, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein. The Court questions the witness about a July 21 letter sent to the court, asking if her law firm would have voluntarily disclosed information about an investigation into 'Juror No. 1' without being prompted. The witness begins to affirm that they expected the information to eventually be revealed.
DOJ-OGR-00010094.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Edelstein, by an attorney, Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses on why Ms. Edelstein and her colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, did not inform the court after discovering that a juror, Juror No. 1, shared the same name as a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad. Ms. Edelstein testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' they were the same person and therefore saw no reason to bring it to the court's attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010091.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune to omit information from a legal brief. Edelstein admits they decided not to include information about a juror note and a suspended lawyer. He expresses regret over this decision, stating that in hindsight they should have included a footnote to avoid creating a misimpression.
DOJ-OGR-00010090.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the drafting of a legal brief. Edelstein testifies about a discussion with a colleague, Ms. Brune, regarding whether to disclose their prior knowledge of a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. The testimony centers on their intent and state of mind at the time, stating they were not focused on the legal concept of 'waiver' but rather on establishing facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal deposition where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the timeline of their knowledge concerning certain facts. Edelstein clarifies that their understanding of the situation evolved, distinguishing between what was known on May 12th and what was known later when writing a legal brief. The testimony reveals that a letter received by Edelstein prompted an investigation into the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010088.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition or court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness on May 12th of an investigation conducted by a colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, regarding a 'suspended lawyer'. Edelstein admits to knowing about the suspended lawyer on that date but denies being aware of Trzaskoma's investigation itself.
DOJ-OGR-00010085.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about a brief they co-authored. The questioning focuses on whether the brief was intentionally written to mislead the reader about when Edelstein learned of Juror Catherine Conrad's suspension as a lawyer, particularly in relation to receiving a letter from the government. Edelstein admits the brief could be misread but denies any malicious intent, a claim the questioner challenges by referencing a specific decision made with a colleague, Ms. Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00010082.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about his role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on discussions he had with colleagues, Susan Brune and Randy Kim, concerning whether to disclose facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th. The timing of these strategic discussions, specifically whether they occurred before the receipt of a "juror letter," is a central point of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00010081.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the questioning of an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness of a juror's (Catherine Conrad) past involvement in a lawsuit, information received from Theresa Trzaskoma via a Westlaw report, and the subsequent decision to hire Nardello to investigate after receiving a 'juror letter'.
DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing testimony about the jury selection process. A witness explains why they and others decided not to further investigate a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, despite Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern that she might be a suspended lawyer. The witness states that after reviewing Conrad's voir dire responses, they concluded it was a different person and found it "inconceivable" she would lie about her education.
DOJ-OGR-00010079.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of Catherine Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein could have researched Conrad on May 12th and clarifies that Edelstein's information came from Theresa Trzaskoma, who stated Conrad was a suspended lawyer but did not mention a specific 'suspension report'.
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-00010075.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a deposition or testimony, involving a person named Edelstein. The questions revolve around Edelstein's involvement in the trial for the defense of David Parse, email exchanges mentioning Robert Conrad, Theresa Trzaskoma, and David Benhamou, and the receipt of a 'dossier' or a link to one, possibly related to a Catherine Conrad letter.
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-00010072.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the timeline of when the legal team became aware of information regarding 'Juror No. 1' and an individual named Catherine Conrad. The witness discusses a conversation with colleague Theresa Trzaskoma (who was overseas) on June 20th following the receipt of a letter from Juror No. 1, and the subsequent review of a memo prepared by paralegal David Benhamou.
DOJ-OGR-00010071.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned by an attorney, Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's knowledge of a Westlaw report and a series of email exchanges on May 12th involving his partner, Randy Kim, and a Theresa Trzaskoma. These emails allegedly led Trzaskoma to believe that 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, and the questioning also references a 'Jesus e-mail' and a July 15 court conference.
DOJ-OGR-00010070.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is questioned about their knowledge of a Westlaw report concerning Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad. The questioning establishes a timeline, indicating Edelstein reviewed the report after receiving a letter on June 20 but before a court conference on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma. The focus is on whether Edelstein personally noticed similarities between the juror and information in the report, such as her address and her father's name.
DOJ-OGR-00010069.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness is being questioned about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma. The discussion focused on whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person as a suspended lawyer named Catherine M. Conrad. The witness testifies that Ms. Trzaskoma, after reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, concluded they were not the same person because the answers were inconsistent with the juror being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00010067.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript involving the questioning of a witness named Edelstein. The line of questioning focuses on an investigation into 'Juror No. 1,' specifically regarding confusion or verification between a 'suspended New York attorney' named Catherine Conrad and the juror, Catherine M. Conrad. The witness denies asking colleague Theresa Trzaskoma for the suspended attorney's middle initial to distinguish between the two individuals.
DOJ-OGR-00010066.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a person named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a potential conflict of interest involving Juror No. 1. The juror shares the same name, Catherine Conrad, as a suspended New York attorney. Ms. Edelstein explains that she dismissed the possibility of them being the same person because the juror stated during voir dire that her highest level of education was a BA in English, which she believed ruled out the possibility of her also being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00010064.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.
Content of a legal brief
Edelstein and Susan Brune had a conversation where they discussed and decided not to include certain information (regarding a juror note and a suspended lawyer) in a legal brief.
Whether to disclose information about a suspended lawyer,...
Edelstein and Ms. Brune discussed whether to state in a brief that they had prior information about a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. The discussion was in the context of standards for juror misconduct and waiver.
Suspension report of Catherine Conrad
A letter from the government is mentioned, which apparently contained a suspension report. The timing of its receipt is a key point in the questioning.
No Subject
A letter was received by Edelstein which caused concern and prompted an investigation.
No Subject
Mentioned as being received by Edelstein before learning about facts concerning a suspension.
Inclusion of facts in a legal brief
Edelstein confirms having a discussion with Susan Brune about whether to include certain facts in the facts section of a brief.
Facts to be submitted to the Court
The questioner asks Edelstein about discussions regarding revealing facts that Edelstein and Randy Kim had talked about.
Juror information
A 'juror letter' was sent to Edelstein, after which Nardello was called to assist in gathering information.
Content of a legal brief
Edelstein and Susan Brune had a conversation and made a decision to not include certain information they knew about a 'juror note' in a legal brief.
Inclusion of facts in a legal brief
Edelstein confirms having a discussion with Susan Brune about whether to include certain facts in the facts section of a brief.
A surprising and shocking letter from a jury member
Edelstein called Susan to discuss a letter from a jury member. This was their first conversation about it.
Jury matter
A letter received by Edelstein, described as disturbing and having an odd tone, with exclamation points and underlining. It seemed at odds with the observed behavior of Juror No. 1.
The disturbing jury letter
Edelstein spoke with his partner Randy Kim about the letter he found, describing it as very disturbing and having an odd tone.
Drafting of brief / Catherine Conrad
Discussion regarding whether to mention prior knowledge of Catherine Conrad before voir dire.
Juror No. 1's identity
Discussion about whether Juror No. 1 is a suspended lawyer based on a juror note and voir dire history.
Juror No. 1
Discussion regarding Juror No. 1's responses to the voir dire.
Catherine Conrad
Discussion regarding the investigation results.
Brief structure
Discussion regarding how to structure a brief and handle knowledge of a juror/lawyer identity issue.
Draft of brief
Sent a draft of the brief.
Unknown
Link/attachment to a memo by David Benhamou regarding Juror No. 1's voir dire responses and an Appellate Division order.
Identity of Juror No. 1
Discussion while walking to 52 Duane about whether Juror No. 1 is a suspended lawyer based on voir dire answers and a personal injury suit.
Suspended Attorney
Discussion regarding a suspended New York attorney named Catherine Conrad.
Discussion of Catherine Conrad Letter
Discussion regarding the receipt and substance of the letter from Catherine Conrad.
Information on Catherine Conrad
Memo containing gathered information.
Information gathering/Dossier
Discussion about information gathered regarding Catherine Conrad.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity