Bronxville
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009256.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on whether Conrad intentionally lied by omitting the fact he was a lawyer in order to be selected for a jury. Conrad admits to omitting the "pertinent fact" and the questioning explores his motivations, his state of mind during deliberations, and his interactions with U.S. Marshals who later served him a subpoena related to the matter.
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-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-00010131.jpg
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010079.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of Catherine Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein could have researched Conrad on May 12th and clarifies that Edelstein's information came from Theresa Trzaskoma, who stated Conrad was a suspended lawyer but did not mention a specific 'suspension report'.
DOJ-OGR-00010074.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report, a Bronxville address, and the identification of Robert Conrad (an immigration judge) as the father of Catherine Conrad and 'head of household.' The witness also acknowledges seeing email traffic referencing Robert Conrad later in the process.
DOJ-OGR-00010073.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the investigation into 'Juror No. 1' (identified as Catherine M. Conrad), specifically regarding her voir dire responses and a suspension report found via Westlaw. The witness discusses receiving a memo from David Benhamou while in San Francisco that detailed these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00010055.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal deposition from March 24, 2022, involving a witness identified as Brune. The questioning focuses on an email and a Westlaw report concerning a person's identity and status as a suspended attorney from the New York State Office of Court Administration. The witness expresses a belief that there was a case of mistaken identity, where a "Bronxville stay-at-home wife" was confused with a suspended lawyer of the same name.
DOJ-OGR-00010054.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination by Brune). The witness is being questioned about a document containing addresses (Bronx and Bronxville) and lawsuits. The testimony focuses on a specific entry on page 9 of that document, which lists Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' under 'Additional Individuals' rather than 'Head of Household.' The questioning also references email traffic from May 12th involving Ms. Trzaskoma identifying Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00010021.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on a past conversation between Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1,' specifically investigating whether the juror was actually a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' for a lawyer to lie under oath about their identity and denies that a Westlaw report was mentioned during their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00010007.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 24, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the due diligence performed during jury selection (voir dire), specifically admitting that the witness did not launch a full-scale private investigation into every juror and confirming that the investigative entity 'Nardello' did not search for juror Catherine M. Conrad of Bronxville. The witness also discusses the timing of when the government disclosed a letter sent by the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009958.jpg
This document is page A-5675 of an index from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012, related to the court case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' (Case 2:09-cr-00582-ABN). The index lists keywords alphabetically from 'backdating' to 'came' and provides the page and line number references from the full transcript. The document was filed with the court on March 24, 2012.
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-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-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-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-00009376.jpg
This document is a transcript of a redirect examination in a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is questioned about why they did not investigate an individual further, despite a Westlaw report indicating she was a suspended attorney. The witness explains their belief that the report had conflated two different people with the same name, and they were convinced the person in question was a 'Bronxville stay-at-home wife' and not the lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009375.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, specifically a redirect examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a document that contains addresses in the Bronx and Bronxville, lists of lawsuits, and a household description. The key point of the exchange is the identification of Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' within that household and corroborating this identification with prior email traffic from a Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009342.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune is questioned about a prior conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which they discussed the possibility that Juror No. 1 might be a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they dismissed the idea as nonsensical and asserts confidently that Ms. Trzaskoma never mentioned a Westlaw report on the matter, citing the thorough nature of another colleague, Laurie Edelstein, as the basis for her certainty.
DOJ-OGR-00009328.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (likely related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, given the case number) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Brune' (likely defense attorney Susan Brune), is testifying about the defense team's jury research process, specifically regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad. Brune admits that the investigative firm Nardello did not search for Conrad and discusses the timing of when the team focused on the juror's middle initial relative to a letter disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009279.jpg
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as Exhibit A-5675 in the 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 24, 2022. The index lists names and terms appearing in the transcript, including significant mentions of 'Benhamou' (38 times), 'Brune' (48 times), 'Bronx' (43 times), and 'Bronxville' (47 times), along with their specific page and line citations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity