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-00009951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjuring herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The questioning focuses on her awareness of potential perjury charges, her receipt of use immunity, and her motivations for wanting to be on the jury, which she explains was for the 'interesting trial experience' and to get 'back in the swing of things' after a suspension.
DOJ-OGR-00009950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions her about why she made several omissions during jury selection, including failing to disclose her husband's criminal history. The questioning explores her motivations, such as a $40/day juror stipend, unemployment, and an intellectual curiosity for the courtroom, and challenges her distinction between an "omission" and a "lie".
DOJ-OGR-00009949.jpg
This document contains pages 225-228 of a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The text documents the redirect examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror, who is being aggressively questioned about whether she followed Judge Pauley's instructions and whether she perjured herself during voir dire (jury selection). Conrad admits to not following instructions regarding voir dire and acknowledges 'omissions,' but insists she rendered a fair verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009948.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (pages 221-224) from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. It features the testimony of Ms. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney who served as a juror in a complex tax shelter fraud case presided over by Judge Pauley. The questioning revolves around her motives for serving on the jury while suspended, specifically whether she used the service to demonstrate stability for her bar reinstatement petition, which she denies.
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-00009942.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, who was a juror in a previous trial. The questioning focuses on a letter Conrad wrote to another individual, Mr. Okula, in which she claimed she held out for two days to convict a defendant, David Parse. This is contrasted with a later statement she made to Judge Pauley, where she stated that Parse should not have been convicted on a particular charge, highlighting a significant contradiction in her accounts of the jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009940.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a juror named Conrad. The questioning reveals that Conrad was aware of her husband's extensive criminal history but deliberately concealed it during jury selection (voir dire) to secure a place on the jury. The transcript explores her motivations and her understanding of her civic duty in light of her actions.
DOJ-OGR-00009936.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It features the direct examination of a witness, Catherine Conrad, by attorney Mr. Gair. The questioning focuses on impeaching Conrad's credibility by highlighting her history of alcoholism, pancreatitis, and a suspension from the practice of law by the Appellate Division for 'shocking disregard for the judicial system' and mental/physical disability. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, often associated with document releases related to high-profile inquiries, though the specific link to Epstein in this fragment appears to be the document batch source rather than direct content.
DOJ-OGR-00009931.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, a lawyer who served as a juror in a 'tax shelter case.' The questioning focuses on her credibility, specifically accusing her of lying about her residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and concealing her domestic disturbances on Barker Avenue.
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on allegations that Conrad was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by deliberately omitting that she was an attorney and by providing a false address (Bronxville) to Judge Pauley. Conrad admits to the 'omission' of her legal background but distinguishes it from a lie, while the questioner challenges her credibility and the truthfulness of her statements under oath.
DOJ-OGR-00009926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, including her assets of approximately $14,000, her past earnings as a lawyer, and her tax filing history. The attorney attempts to scrutinize her financial success and challenges the truthfulness of a prior affidavit she submitted to a disciplinary committee, while Ms. Conrad is often evasive in her answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009924.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 646-10) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad by Mr. Gair regarding her conduct in a previous hearing before Judge Pauley, specifically concerning her financial inability to retain counsel and her remark that a financial affidavit form was 'garbage'.
DOJ-OGR-00009922.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case United States v. Daugerdas, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The witness, a suspended lawyer, is being aggressively questioned about her defiant behavior toward Judge Pauley during a previous hearing regarding her role as a juror, as well as inquiries into her mental health, specifically bipolar disorder. The witness is evasive, frequently claiming she is not a psychologist and giving sarcastic answers, such as stating she takes 'Water' when asked about medications.
DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct examination of an unnamed witness by an attorney named Conrad regarding the witness's prior statements in court, where they called a defense motion 'ridiculous' and made comments to Judge Pauley about his background. The witness is largely uncooperative, frequently claiming a lack of recall, leading to a tense exchange about their motives and credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00009920.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (pages 109-112) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (2012), ostensibly filed as Exhibit A-5637 in the later Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad, focusing on her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and a previous erratic court appearance on December 20th before Judge Pauley. The questioning highlights her bizarre statements to Judge Pauley regarding Duke University football and 'Clinton appointments,' seemingly to attack her credibility or mental state.
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009918.jpg
This document contains transcript pages 101-104 from the case United States v. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. The witness, Catherine M. Conrad, a former juror in the case, initially asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege regarding her previous voir dire testimony but is subsequently granted immunity by the Court. Under questioning by attorney Mr. Gair, Conrad admits to lies and omissions during her jury service selection in 2011 and confirms she called Judge Pauley's chambers earlier that morning to state she would not attend court.
DOJ-OGR-00009917.jpg
This document is a court transcript from *United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas* dated February 15, 2012. It details a hearing regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, who intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues for the courtroom to be closed to protect Conrad's privacy regarding alcohol dependence and disciplinary records, but the Court denies this request, citing that the information is already public.
DOJ-OGR-00009916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The witness, Ms. Trzaskoma, is being questioned regarding her knowledge of misconduct by Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad), specifically regarding a Westlaw report identifying Conrad as a suspended lawyer. Trzaskoma testifies that she believed the report was a case of mistaken identity and denies trying to 'sandbag' the court by withholding information about Conrad's criminal history and suspended license during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009442.jpg
This document is an index from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It outlines the examination of four witnesses: Susan Brune, Laura Edelstein, Paul Schoeman, and Barry H. Berke. The index provides the starting page numbers for the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations conducted by attorneys Ms. Davis, Mr. Shechtman, and Mr. Okula.
DOJ-OGR-00009438.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing. Both the defense attorneys for defendants Parse and Field, as well as the government attorney, rest their cases. The judge then instructs the parties to submit post-hearing briefs, specifically requesting they address the strongest evidence from the hearing and a key ethical question regarding the potential failure of attorneys for 'Brune & Richard' to disclose a July 21 letter and an investigation concerning Juror No. 1.
DOJ-OGR-00009436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula questions Berke about a hypothetical situation involving a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, serving as Juror No. 1. Berke repeatedly refuses to answer, calling the scenario 'far-fetched' and an attempt to make him speculate on an experience he's never had.
DOJ-OGR-00009435.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding potential juror misconduct. The questioning focuses on whether more information would be useful to assess a connection between a juror and a suspended attorney with the same name, but the witness repeatedly refuses to speculate.
DOJ-OGR-00009430.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. Berke describes a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a background check on a woman where a 'disbarred lawyer' with the same name was found, though they concluded it was a case of mistaken identity based on educational background. The direct examination by Mr. Shechtman concludes, and cross-examination by Mr. Okula begins with some light banter about a 'bucket list'.
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