Edelstein
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 | N/A | Receipt of David Benhamou's memo by Edelstein. | San Francisco | View |
| N/A | N/A | Submission of a brief in support of a motion for a new trial. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial related to the defense of David Parse, where Edelstein was involved in various parts, focus... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meetings where jurors were discussed prior to voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Information sharing | Theresa Trzaskoma told the witness (Edelstein) that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine ... | 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 | Testimony / deposition | Edelstein is questioned about his knowledge of Juror No. 1's identity and potential connection to... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination and redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein regarding knowledge of Ju... | Courtroom (implied) | 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 | 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 | Receipt of document | A letter written in May was received on June 20. | 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 |
| 2025-11-05 | Information gathering | Facts were learned from or by Theresa Trzaskoma. | N/A | View |
| 2025-05-12 | Meeting/discussion | Discussion between Edelstein and Susan Brune about whether to include facts learned on May 12 in ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Voir Dire | Court | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where one witness (Ms. Brune) is excused and another (Laura Joy Edelstein) is cal... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Legal testimony | Ms. Edelstein is questioned about her awareness of Theresa Trzaskoma's investigation into Catheri... | Unspecified legal setting | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court proceeding | Questioning of witness Edelstein by an unnamed questioner, with attorney Mr. Okula present. | Court | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Legal proceeding / testimony / voir dire discussion | A question-and-answer session (likely a deposition or court testimony) where Edelstein questions ... | Implied to be within the So... | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Legal proceeding | Questioning of a witness, Edelstein, regarding what they knew about Ms. Trzaskoma's suspicion of ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court proceeding | Testimony of witness Edelstein, being questioned by Mr. Okula in the presence of Mr. Schectman an... | N/A | View |
| 2018-08-09 | N/A | conference | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. In the transcript, a witness named Ms. Brune is excused by the court. The government's attorney, Mr. Okula, then calls a new witness, Laura Joy Edelstein, who is sworn in and begins her direct examination with a question about a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009999.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms that their legal team had arranged for and used internet and e-mail access in the courtroom throughout a trial, including during jury deliberations. Team members Lori Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma are identified as having used laptops in court for this purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009417.jpg
This court transcript details the questioning of a witness by the judge regarding a potential issue with Juror No. 1. The judge asks why the witness did not raise this issue, which they had discussed with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma on May 12, at the time when another juror, Juror No. 11, was replaced due to a health emergency. The witness responds that it did not occur to them to raise the issue at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Edelstein. The interrogation focuses on a phone call that occurred on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma and the Court, probing whether Edelstein's firm made an omission that could be considered a lie. The questioning also explores what the firm knew about certain facts prior to receiving a letter.
DOJ-OGR-00009412.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from February 24, 2022, where an individual named Edelstein is questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune to omit information from a legal brief. Edelstein admits to discussing with Brune what to exclude regarding a 'juror note' and expresses regret, stating that in hindsight, they should have included a footnote about a suspended lawyer and apologizes for any misimpression the brief created.
DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein. The testimony concerns the drafting of a legal brief and whether the legal team knowingly omitted information regarding a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad prior to voir dire (jury selection). The witness explains their focus was on establishing identity rather than waiving rights regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring testimony by an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on when Edelstein and another individual, Theresa Trzaskoma, learned specific facts regarding a 'suspension' and whether this occurred via a Google search/investigation or after receiving a specific note/letter. Edelstein attempts to clarify the timeline of what was known on May 12th versus what was known when a legal brief was subsequently written.
DOJ-OGR-00009409.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning concerns whether Edelstein was aware of an internal investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma prior to receiving a specific letter, particularly focusing on knowledge possessed on May 12th regarding a 'suspended lawyer.' Edelstein denies awareness of an investigation on that date, admitting only to knowing about a suspended lawyer with a specific name.
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-00009404.jpg
This document is page 343 of a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein (likely regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the context of juror misconduct). The testimony details legal strategy discussions between Edelstein and Susan Brune regarding a juror who shared a name with a suspended lawyer. They discussed how to address their knowledge of this potential identity match in a legal brief drafted by Theresa Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009403.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about their role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein discussed with colleagues, specifically Susan Brune, the inclusion of certain facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on or about May 12th. Edelstein confirms having such a discussion about what to include in the brief prior to the receipt of a 'juror letter'.
DOJ-OGR-00009402.jpg
This is a court transcript page filed on February 24, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). A witness named Edelstein is being questioned about whether their legal team had the resources to investigate Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, specifically regarding a prior personal injury lawsuit she failed to fully disclose during voir dire. Edelstein admits they had the resources to call investigators (Nardello) but did not do so initially because they didn't believe the Catherine Conrad in the Westlaw report was the same person as the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. It features testimony from a witness named Edelstein regarding a discussion with Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1. They debated whether the juror was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad but concluded at the time that it was 'inconceivable' based on voir dire responses, specifically regarding education.
DOJ-OGR-00009400.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein performed Google research on 'May 12th' regarding a suspended New York attorney named Catherine Conrad, after allegedly being tipped off by Theresa Trzaskoma. The witness denies having Conrad's phone number on that date and clarifies the specific information received from Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009398.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony given by a witness named Edelstein. He recounts receiving a 'surprising and shocking' letter from a juror, which he found disturbing due to its odd tone. Edelstein discusses his process of connecting the contents of this letter with information previously provided by Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, and his subsequent conversation about the letter with his partner, Randy Kim.
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-00009396.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 335) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Edelstein is being questioned regarding their role in the defense of David Parse, specifically concerning email exchanges involving Theresa Trzaskoma and David Benhamou regarding Robert Conrad. The testimony also touches on the witness's involvement in voir dire (jury selection) and the receipt of a 'Catherine Conrad letter' or dossier.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009393.jpg
This document is a transcript of testimony from an individual named Edelstein. Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of a dossier or information gathered on Catherine Conrad. The witness recalls a conversation on June 20th with Theresa Trzaskoma about the information and being directed to a memo from a paralegal, David Benhamou, but denies characterizing the information as a 'dossier' and is uncertain about the exact timeline of events relative to a July 15th conference.
DOJ-OGR-00009392.jpg
This document is page 331 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The testimony involves a witness named Edelstein being questioned by Mr. Okula about discussions regarding a 'Westlaw report' and email exchanges concerning 'Juror No. 1' possibly being a 'suspended attorney.' The witness confirms discussing the matter with their partner, Randy Kim, in San Francisco, who had corresponded with Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009391.jpg
This document is a legal transcript from a deposition where the witness, Edelstein, is questioned about the discovery of information regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Edelstein's side learned from a Westlaw report that the juror was a suspended attorney, referencing an email sent within the firm, a letter received on June 20, and a court conference on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009390.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness, Edelstein, recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma. The discussion focused on whether Juror No. 1 was the same individual as a suspended lawyer named Catherine M. Conrad. Edelstein testifies that while Ms. Trzaskoma initially considered the possibility, she concluded they were not the same person after reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, which were inconsistent with being a lawyer.
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