SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010236.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the questioning of a witness (likely a juror) regarding their failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse on 'question 48' of a jury questionnaire. The witness claims they were distracted and misread the question options ('yes self' vs 'yes friend or family').
DOJ-OGR-00010233.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a colloquy between the Judge (Q) and a Juror (A) regarding the juror's lack of diligence in filling out the jury questionnaire. The juror admits to rushing because they did not believe they would be chosen and compares the experience to not wanting to be the last student finishing a test in school.
DOJ-OGR-00010229.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing filed on March 11, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). A witness (likely a juror) is being questioned about an inaccurate answer provided on a jury questionnaire (Question 48A). The witness claims the error was an 'inadvertent mistake' caused by skimming the question too fast while being distracted by noise, audiovisual delays, and emotional distress from a recent breakup.
DOJ-OGR-00010216.jpg
This document is an appearance list for a court proceeding in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on March 8, 2022, in the Southern District of New York. It details the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and lists all attorneys representing the United States, the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, and Juror 50. The document also includes the case number and the court reporting agency.
DOJ-OGR-00010204.jpg
This document is the cover page for an Amended Sentencing Memorandum filed on March 18, 2013, by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Preet Bharara) regarding defendant David Parse. The case (S3 09 Cr. 581) involves multiple defendants including Paul Daugerdas, Donna Guerin, and Denis Field. The document also bears markings indicating it was later filed as Exhibit A-6074 in a 2020 civil case (1:20-cv-00338-AJN) on August 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010159.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case 'United States of America v. David Parse.' It records the opening of oral arguments regarding Parse's motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense attorney Paul Shechtman and prosecutors Nanette Davis and Stanley J. Okula, Jr. are present. While part of a larger batch of documents (indicated by the DOJ-OGR Bates stamp) often associated with Epstein-related releases, the text specifically concerns the trial of David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00010158.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court transcript from a proceeding on October 12, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is United States of America v. David K. Parse, with Judge William H. Pauley III presiding. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution, led by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and the defense, represented by Paul Shechtman of Zuckerman Spaeder.
DOJ-OGR-00010109.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 369) featuring the testimony of a witness named Berke. The text captures the end of a direct examination by Mr. Shechtman, where Berke recounts a conversation with Ms. Brune regarding a mistaken identity involving a disbarred lawyer. The document then transitions to cross-examination by Mr. Okula, who makes a remark about checking the cross-examination off his 'bucket list'.
DOJ-OGR-00010107.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 21, 2022, featuring the direct examination of attorney Barry H. Berke by Mr. Shechtman. Berke testifies about his employment history at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel and the Federal Defenders office, and confirms he was a lawyer present in the courtroom during the trial of David Parse. The document bears a DOJ-OGR bates stamp, suggesting it was released as part of a Department of Justice records request.
DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00010004.jpg
This page is a court transcript excerpt featuring the cross-examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her failure to inform the Court about a Google search revealing a prospective juror, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits the information was significant but confirms she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time. The document is filed under case 1:20-cv-08130.
DOJ-OGR-00009987.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune confirms having worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, leaving in November 1997 to start the law firm 'Brune & Richard' with Hillary Richard on February 2, 1998. Brune also clarifies that their partner, Hillary Richard, is primarily a civil lawyer.
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-00009903.jpg
This document is the cover page for Volume XVI of a legal appendix filed on February 24, 2022, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for case number 13-1388-cr. The case is an appeal by Defendant-Appellant David Parse and others against the United States of America. The document identifies the parties involved and lists the legal counsel for both the government (Appellee) and the appellant David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009870.jpg
This document is the cover page of a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is titled "Ghislaine Maxwell's Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial" for the case United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document identifies Maxwell as the defendant and lists her legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00009801.jpg
This document is the preliminary statement of a memorandum filed by the United States Government on March 11, 2022, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The Government argues that Maxwell has failed to meet the heavy burden required to prove juror misconduct during voir dire. The text cites legal precedents to support the finality of trials and argues the motion should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00009799.jpg
This document is the cover page for the United States Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial. It was filed on March 11, 2022, in the Southern District of New York under case number S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). The filing lists United States Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, and Rohrbach as counsel for the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009774.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 24, 2022, for case 20-cr-00330-ABN. The juror responds to a series of questions about their personal relationships with key case participants. The juror explicitly denies having any personal knowledge of or dealings with defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any of the named prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00009772.jpg
This document is page 15 of a juror questionnaire (Juror ID: 50) for a legal case, filed on March 24, 2022. The prospective juror denies having any professional, business, or social associations with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
DOJ-OGR-00009693.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing, specifically 'Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial', submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 11, 2022. The case is identified as United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document lists the names and contact information for Maxwell's legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00009691.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 9, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order confirms that, following a hearing, the court has docketed several case documents, including an Opinion & Order and a signed immunity order, with limited redactions to protect juror anonymity. The judge further orders that the unredacted versions of these documents will be filed under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00009676.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) for the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 9, 2022. The juror responds to a series of questions, denying any personal knowledge of or past/present dealings with the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any of the named prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The juror consistently answers "No" to all questions regarding personal relationships with case participants.
DOJ-OGR-00009660.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on March 9, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order is based on an application by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams to compel a redacted individual to testify at a hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022. The document states that this individual had refused to testify, citing the privilege against self-incrimination, but the U.S. Attorney judged their testimony to be in the public interest.
DOJ-OGR-00009637.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 635) dated March 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains proposed questions for a juror regarding potential bias against Maxwell and their ability to be fair. The document is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00009632.jpg
This document is a court order filed on March 7, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details an application by US Attorney Damian Williams to compel a redacted male witness to testify at a hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022, despite the witness refusing to do so based on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The document cites Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6003 regarding immunity and compulsion of testimony.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity