Mr. Parse
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Barry Berke
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Carrie Yackee
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Brune & Richard
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Deutsche Bank
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Negative opinion |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Deutsche Bank
|
Employment professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jenkins & Gilchrist
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune & Richard
|
Former counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Brubaker
|
Co defendants comparables |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Carrie Yackee
|
Professional subordinate supervisor |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Deutsche Bank
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
IRS
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Adversarial defendant vs judicial system |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Brune firm
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Speaker (unnamed)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Criminal activity | Defendant Mr. Parse was allegedly involved in a corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in mail ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Financial transaction | Transactions were implemented by Mr. Parse at Deutsche Bank based on instructions from Jenkins & ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conviction | Mr. Parse was convicted of three 'backdating' transactions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation / verdict | A jury deliberation resulted in a split verdict and the acquittal of Mr. Parse, which is the subj... | Jury room | View |
| N/A | Verdict | A split verdict was delivered in the case of Mr. Parse. The verdict is said to have tracked the d... | Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | A future sentencing for Mr. Parse is mentioned to be scheduled for January. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-12-01 | N/A | Avalanche of work to finalize tax shelter transactions by year end. | Offices of Mr. Parse and Ca... | View |
| 2025-12-01 | Work activity | An 'avalanche of work' occurred at the end of tax years in December to finalize tax shelter trans... | offices of Mr. Parse | View |
| 2025-01-02 | Financial transaction | The broker reversed the mistaken stock transfers, backdating the correction to December 28. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-24 | N/A | Trial of Mr. Parse | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-24 | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Mr. Schoeman by attorney Mr. Shechtman. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009268.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, of the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a juror/attorney) in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The header indicates this document was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), likely as a defense exhibit regarding juror misconduct precedents. The text details Conrad's affirmation that she followed Judge Pauley's instructions, her legal background from Brooklyn Law School, and her deliberations regarding witnesses Dr. DeRosa and Paul Shanbrom, and defendants Brubaker and Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009265.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Daugerdas', filed as Exhibit A-5661 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad (likely the infamous juror Catherine Conrad), who admits to lying and omitting information during voir dire to make herself 'more marketable as a juror.' The questioning covers her husband's criminal record (convicted felon, 7.5-year sentence), her own disciplinary suspension by the Bar Association, and her flippant 'smart ass' attitude toward the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009264.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Conrad, by attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses intensely on a letter Conrad wrote to attorney Mr. Okula, specifically her choice of postage stamp and her decision to capitalize the words "our government," probing her motivations and opinions about other individuals involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00010181.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 22, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, is arguing before a judge, refuting the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. Shechtman contends that the acquittal was the result of a split verdict caused by a single 'partisan' juror who was unable to convince the rest of the jury to convict, and that this outcome was not a benefit derived from her presence.
DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010179.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022. An unnamed speaker argues that Mr. Parse's implementation of end-of-year financial transactions was a knowing and criminal act to obstruct the IRS, not a simple mistake. Another speaker, Ms. Davis, addresses the judge, referring to additional evidence submitted in a written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00010178.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the content appears to stem from a separate tax fraud case involving Deutsche Bank (likely U.S. v. Daugerdas/Parse). The text details a closing argument or legal submission regarding 'tax shelter transactions' designed to defraud the IRS, specifically highlighting the roles of Deutsche Bank employees Mr. Parse and Carrie Yackee, and referencing testimony from Paul Daugerdas' secretary. The argument asserts that Parse and Yackee were the only ones at Deutsche Bank who knew the 'full picture' of the fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00010177.jpg
This document appears to be a transcript of a legal argument asserting that David Parse was fully aware that a series of complex financial transactions were being executed for tax loss purposes. The speaker argues that Parse's sales assistant, Carrie Yackee, acted explicitly on his instructions to carry out these transactions for two taxpayers, Coleman and Blair. The argument also highlights communication between Parse's office, the firm Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank, suggesting a coordinated effort.
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues that there is overwhelming evidence of defendant Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud via backdated transactions. She also contends that his background as a CPA is relevant to proving his intent. The transcript also references another attorney, Mr. Shechtman, and the testimony of Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein regarding their knowledge of a juror, which they allegedly tried to conceal from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 24, 2022) recording an argument by Ms. Davis (prosecution) against a motion for a new trial for defendant Mr. Parse. Davis argues that Parse received a 'platinum plated defense' and that his previous counsel (Brune & Richard) made a strategic decision to keep Catherine Conrad as Juror No. 1 despite knowing her identity, a choice that resulted in acquittals on some counts. The text discusses the 'Strickland standard' for ineffective assistance of counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00010167.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 23, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. They discuss the constitutional effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel, the Brune firm, with Mr. Shechtman affirming that the defense was 'very solid' despite some potential areas for improvement. The conversation also touches on legal strategy, mentioning another lawyer, Barry Berke, and the implications of the double jeopardy clause.
DOJ-OGR-00010106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions Schoeman about a conversation he had on or after May 13th with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which she allegedly rejected the idea that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. After Schoeman is excused, attorney Mr. Parse calls Barry Berke, from the same law firm, as the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on her credibility, exploring her past actions as a juror for a Mr. Okula, her understanding of financial matters from an expert named Dr. DeRosa, and her failure to disclose a prior disciplinary suspension from the Bar Association during jury selection. The transcript also reveals personal details, such as her husband being a convicted felon, which are used to challenge her character and motivations.
DOJ-OGR-00009943.jpg
This document is a transcript excerpt from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012. It features the testimony of a witness named Conrad, who is questioned about a letter she wrote to Mr. Okula, her use of specific stamps, and her negative opinions of individuals named Brubaker and Parse (referring to them as 'idiot', 'stupid', and 'fricken crooks'). The witness also admits to having been suspended in the Southern District of New York. This document appears to have been filed as an exhibit in a later 2022 case (1:20-cv-00813), likely the US Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase litigation regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00009517.jpg
This legal document, a letter from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III dated March 7, 2013, argues for a lenient sentence for their client, David Parse. The letter contends that Parse's role was limited to that of a broker executing trades, not designing or marketing illegal tax shelters, and that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh for his level of culpability. It further notes that of all the brokers performing similar functions for the law firm Jenkins, only Parse and Craig Brubaker were prosecuted, with Parse being the only one convicted.
DOJ-OGR-00009516.jpg
This legal document, a letter from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, dated March 7, 2013, argues for a lower sentencing guideline for their client, Mr. Parse. The firm contends that since Mr. Parse was only convicted of three "backdating" transactions, sentencing enhancements for "sophisticated means" and "special skills" are unwarranted, as he did not design the underlying complex tax shelters. The letter provides a total loss calculation of $3,807,988 based on IRS assessments related to the transactions.
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, involving an individual named Mr. Parse accused of defrauding the government. An attorney, identified as CAC3PARC, argues before a judge about the nature of a mistake made in the case and, more significantly, about the interpretation of a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad. The attorney contends that under Rule 606(b) and precedent from a Third Circuit case, the note cannot be used to infer prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, before a judge. Shechtman refutes the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a "partisan" juror, arguing instead that the resulting split verdict was due to this juror's inability to persuade others to convict, not because her presence was advantageous to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009500.jpg
This document is page 81 of Exhibit A-5924, filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). However, the text of the transcript appears to be from a separate legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving David Parse, Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank) being used as a legal precedent or argument within the Maxwell trial. Ms. Davis argues to the Court that evidence shows 'Mr. Parse' had knowing criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS, distinguishing his actions from a simple mistake.
DOJ-OGR-00009499.jpg
This document appears to be a transcript of a legal argument asserting that a jury had sufficient evidence to infer an individual's knowledge of a scheme to defraud the IRS. The argument cites testimony from multiple individuals, including Sandra Burnside and Carrie Yackee, describing an 'avalanche of work' in December to finalize tax shelter transactions, implicating Mr. Parse and Ms. Yackee at Deutsche Bank. The speaker refutes a suggestion from Mr. Shechtman's brief that Deutsche Bank's approval of the transactions meant that only a few people knew the full extent of the scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing arguments made by MS. DAVIS regarding defendant Mr. Parse. MS. DAVIS asserts overwhelming evidence of Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, specifically mentioning his role in backdated transactions and the relevance of his CPA background. The transcript also references testimony from Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, and communications related to the case after a jury verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009496.jpg
This document is a legal transcript where a speaker argues that the law firm Brune & Richard made a deliberate, strategic choice not to inform the court about a potential issue with a juror. The speaker contends that on May 12, after an investigation concerning Theresa Trzskoma, the lawyers, including Susan Brune, consciously decided against taking action, which the speaker believes cannot form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for their client, Mr. Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009492.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which an unnamed speaker recounts a mistaken stock transaction from December 28th of 'year one'. The speaker's broker accidentally sent 10,000 Philip Morris shares to a charity and 10,000 IBM shares to the speaker's daughter, the reverse of the instructions. The error was discovered on January 2nd when the charity rejected the tobacco stock, and the broker subsequently corrected the transaction, backdating it to the original date.
DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
This document is page 71 of 117 from a court filing (Exhibit A-5914) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on Feb 24, 2022. The content is a transcript from a different legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving Deutsche Bank) where attorney Mr. Shechtman argues about 'ineffective assistance' and 'prejudice,' comparing the situations of a Mr. Parse and Mr. Brubaker. The text discusses bank records, backdating allegations, and the cross-examination of a government cooperator by the Kramer Levin firm.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity