MR. OKULA
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Correspondent |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Berke
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune's firm
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Schoeman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Berke
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine M. Conrad
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
LAURA EDELSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Schoeman
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROTERT
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | The Government rests its case. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Schoeman regarding juror vetting. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Laura Edelstein | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Paul Schoeman | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Barry H. Berke | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court testimony (Direct and Cross-examination) of Mr. Berke. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | Conrad served as a juror in a case involving Mr. Okula, where she claims she "fought the good fig... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Edelstein. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing in the case of United States of America v. Paul Daugerdas where the defense and prosecu... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberations | Jury deliberations in the trial of David Parse and others, where Conrad served as a juror. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Schoeman by attorney Mr. Okula regarding the timing of a conversatio... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal examination/testimony | Examination of witness Laura Edelstein, including direct, cross, and redirect examinations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal examination/testimony | Examination of witness Paul Schoeman, including direct, cross, and redirect examinations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal examination/testimony | Examination of witness Barry H. Berke, including direct, cross, and redirect examinations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing was held to discuss and set deadlines for legal briefs before being adjourned. | Southern District (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A court hearing where a witness is being questioned by a judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Attorney Mr. Okula cross-examines witness Berke during a legal proceeding. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding / deposition | Examination of Ms. Edelstein by Mr. Okula regarding the firm's knowledge of facts related to a go... | Southern District | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination and redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein regarding knowledge of Ju... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-06-24 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-04-05 | Legal deadline | Deadline set for providing responses to the initial briefs. | N/A | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Evidentiary Hearing | Court | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of a witness named Berke regarding an assessment of possible juror misconduct. | Southern District Court (im... | 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 |
| 2022-03-24 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding Case 1:19-cr-00338-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District (New York) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009274.jpg
This document is a court transcript index from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012. It has been filed as an exhibit (Document 616-1) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely as a legal precedent or impeachment material regarding witness testimony. The page lists the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, along with a list of Government and Defense (PMD) exhibits received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination and dismissal of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjury and misrepresentation regarding her service as a juror. Defense counsel (Mr. Gair) characterizes her as a 'pathological liar.' The proceedings also involve discussions about calling a U.S. Marshal and a law student named Mr. Benhamou as witnesses, though the latter is dismissed to return to class. The document appears to be an exhibit filed in a later case (likely Giuffre v. Maxwell based on the 2022 filing stamp).
DOJ-OGR-00009272.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is questioned about receiving use immunity and the possibility of facing perjury charges. The transcript culminates with the judge directly questioning Ms. Conrad about why she admittedly lied and perjured herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process, to which she responds it was for the 'interesting trial experience'.
DOJ-OGR-00009271.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad. The questioning, led primarily by attorney Mr. Shechtman, focuses on why she failed to disclose information during jury selection (voir dire), such as her husband's criminal record and her own suspended legal career. Conrad defends her 'omissions,' while the attorney probes whether she lied to get on the jury for the $40/day stipend, out of curiosity, or for 'intellectual stimulation'.
DOJ-OGR-00009270.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad (a former juror), who is being aggressively questioned about her failure to follow Judge Pauley's instructions and her admission of perjury during voir dire. The document is likely included in the Maxwell case files as a legal precedent regarding juror misconduct and the impact of untruthful answers during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of the United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct and cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad, regarding her failure to disclose significant personal information during jury selection, including her status as a suspended lawyer and her husband's extensive criminal record. The questioning explores whether she deliberately concealed this information and whether she held any bias that would have affected her judgment in the case.
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-00009263.jpg
This document is a four-page transcript excerpt (pages 197-200) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (February 15, 2012), filed as Exhibit A-5659 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The transcript features the examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad regarding a letter she sent to a Mr. Okula (likely a fellow juror), in which she included her phone number and discussed her reasoning for convicting defendant David Parse. The questioning highlights contradictions between what Conrad wrote to Okula on May 25th (claiming she wanted to convict Parse 100%) and what she told Judge Pauley on December 20th (claiming Parse shouldn't have been convicted on count 1). This document was likely used in the Maxwell trial to argue legal precedents regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009262.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, but released within an Epstein-related document dump (DOJ-OGR-00009262). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad (also known as Rosa), regarding a letter she wrote to prosecutor Mr. Okula on May 25, 2011, the day after a verdict was reached in a previous trial where she served as a juror. The questioning focuses on her anxiety to speak with the prosecution, discrepancies between her physical location (Barker Avenue) and the return address used (Parkview Drive), and her failure to contact defense attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00009259.jpg
This document is an exhibit (A-5655) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a transcript from a 2012 trial (*USA v. Daugerdas*) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The testimony focuses on Conrad's criminal history—including multiple DUIs, assaulting a police officer, shoplifting shrimp, and harassment—and his admission to lying about these arrests during jury selection (voir dire) and on a petition filed under oath.
DOJ-OGR-00009258.jpg
This document is a transcript from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of witness Catherine Conrad (also known as Catherine Rosa), focusing on her credibility, her indefinite suspension from the practice of law, her alcoholism, and her arrest for petit larceny in 2009. The testimony reveals she submitted inaccurate medical reports regarding her sobriety to support her petition for reinstatement to the bar.
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-00009254.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas (dated Feb 15, 2012), specifically a direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The testimony focuses on Conrad's alleged perjury and misconduct during jury selection (voir dire), specifically regarding lies about her residence in Bronxville and her husband's background (claiming he owned bus companies when he was actually a 'retired criminal' released from a NJ penitentiary in 2004). While included in a DOJ release batch (DOJ-OGR-00009254), the content pertains to the Daugerdas tax shelter case and juror misconduct, not directly to Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00009253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It captures the direct examination of a witness or juror named Conrad, who is being questioned about lies told to Judge Pauley during jury selection. Conrad admits to falsely stating they lived at their address their "whole life" and that they owned their residence, explaining they did so because they "thought I would seem more juror marketable."
DOJ-OGR-00009252.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. A witness, Ms. Conrad, is being questioned about providing conflicting residency information (Bronx vs. Bronxville) during jury selection. The questioning suggests she may have misrepresented her address to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and to potentially conceal a tumultuous home life.
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-00009249.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 616-1) in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 4, 2022. The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her conduct as a juror in a previous trial. She admits to omitting the fact that she possessed a Juris Doctor (JD) degree during jury selection (voir dire) and is questioned aggressively about whether this omission constituted a lie to the Court and Judge Pauley. The testimony also covers discrepancies regarding her stated residence (Bronxville vs. Bronx Village).
DOJ-OGR-00009247.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Daugerdas, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a former juror who is a suspended lawyer) regarding her financial status, specifically establishing she had approximately $14,000 in assets versus her claim of indigence for legal counsel. The questioning highlights discrepancies between her court testimony and a sworn affidavit submitted to the Bar disciplinary committee regarding her tax returns and income.
DOJ-OGR-00009246.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing an afternoon session where the Court addresses matters that arose during a luncheon recess, including a financial affidavit from Ms. Conrad and a voice mail she left stating she would not attend the hearing. The transcript also covers an examination by Mr. Gair and Mr. Okula regarding a prior conversation on December 20th with Judge Pauley about 'The Answerer's' financial ability to hire a lawyer and their personal finances, which 'The Answerer' claimed were irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00009245.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, by an attorney, Mr. Gair. The questioning focuses on a prior court appearance where Conrad, upon being given a financial affidavit to determine her eligibility for a court-appointed lawyer, declared, "This is garbage." Gair probes Conrad's memory, motivations, and the rationality of her statement, which she describes as a "kneejerk reaction."
DOJ-OGR-00009244.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial 'United States v. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, which was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, focusing on her mental state (medication use), her refusal to accept a subpoena during a December 20th hearing before Judge Pauley, and her financial inability to hire counsel. The questioning attorney challenges Conrad on whether her behavior of rejecting a subpoena and inviting arrest was 'rational' conduct for an officer of the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009243.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on Conrad's defiance of a previous court order from Judge Pauley to testify, her background as a suspended lawyer, and her mental health. Conrad is evasive, repeatedly stating she is not a psychologist, and provides minimal answers, including claiming she only takes "Water" as medication.
DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg
This document is a court transcript from 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (dated Feb 15, 2012) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely the infamous Juror 50 from the Daugerdas trial) regarding her bias, her admission to 'Googling' the judge and attorneys, and her 'smart a-s-s' comments about Judge Pauley being a 'Clinton appointee.' This transcript was likely used in the Maxwell case to argue legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009241.jpg
This document is a condensed court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas', filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and her behavior during a previous court appearance before Judge Pauley on December 20th. The testimony highlights erratic statements Conrad previously made to Judge Pauley, including comments about his intelligence, his attendance at Duke University, and his potential desire for a 'Clinton appointment'.
No Subject
Ms. Conrad included her phone number at the top of a letter sent to Mr. Okula.
Unknown
Discusses Miss Davis and Mr. Hernandez doing an outstanding job; uses the phrase 'our government' with capitalization.
Hypothetical situation involving a suspended attorney ser...
Mr. Okula questions the witness, Berke, about what actions he would take if he discovered that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Berke refuses to answer the question, deeming it speculative.
Jury Deliberation
Stated 'I fought the good fight' implying she fought for his side.
No Subject
Ms. Conrad included her phone number at the top of a letter sent to Mr. Okula.
Unknown
Letter included her phone number at the top.
Cross-examination regarding a suspended attorney serving ...
Mr. Okula questions the witness, Berke, about what actions he would take upon learning that a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, was serving as Juror No. 1. Berke refuses to answer the hypothetical question, calling the premise 'far-fetched'.
Cross-examination regarding a suspended attorney serving ...
Mr. Okula questions the witness, Berke, about what actions he would take upon learning that a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, was serving as Juror No. 1. Berke refuses to answer the hypothetical question, calling the premise 'far-fetched'.
Juror Misconduct
A letter from Ms. Conrad was received by Ms. Brune's firm around June 20th, 2011. The letter is the basis for questions about potential juror misconduct.
Unknown
Letter received by Brune's firm approximately three weeks after being posted to the government.
Post-trial discussion of jury deliberations
A letter written by juror Conrad to Mr. Okula after a trial, dated May 25th. In it, she claimed she held out for two days to convict David Parse. The tone is described as potentially playful or flirtatious, and it contained her cell phone number and address.
Post-trial communication
Letter containing Conrad's phone number and comments about the conviction of David Parse.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity