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-00009427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2012, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, questions Mr. Schoeman about a conversation on or after May 13th, in which Ms. Trzaskoma told him she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. The witness confirms the conversation but states he had no specific understanding of her reasoning, attributing the information sharing to their established pattern during the lengthy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
DOJ-OGR-00009423.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2012. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney, Mr. Okula, regarding the timing of a conversation Schoeman had with a Ms. Trzaskoma. The questioning aims to establish whether this conversation occurred on the same day or several days after a juror's note was received in court during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009419.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. In the proceeding, the Government (represented by Mr. Okula) rests its case after admitting Exhibit 10 into evidence. Subsequently, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins the defense case for 'Defendant Parse' by calling Paul Schoeman as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.
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-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-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-00009383.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 322) filed on February 24, 2022. It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Brune and the commencement of testimony by a new government witness, attorney Laurie Edelstein. During direct examination, Mr. Okula asks Ms. Edelstein a hypothetical question regarding a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009382.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Okula, addresses the judge. He clarifies his team's actions after receiving a note, explaining they did not conduct an independent investigation because they deemed it innocuous and assumed the government was performing its own research. Mr. Okula states that he only learned the government had not done this research upon seeing a motion filed by the defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009351.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness named Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about communications she had with defense counsel after receiving a copy of a letter from Ms. Conrad. Ms. Brune states these were 'joint defense communications' and recounts becoming upset by a jury note, after which her colleague, Ms. Edelstein, verified a phone number from the letter on the Bar website.
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