Ms. Trzaskoma
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Edelstein
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Business associate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Benhamou
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Witness (A)
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Hernandez
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Schoeman
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Schoeman
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
witness
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Schoeman
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Robert J. Conrad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Schoeman
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Berke
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Barry Berke
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL SCHOEMAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert J. Conrad
|
Identification |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed lawyers from San Francisco
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Conversation | A conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma where Trzaskoma mentioned a possible connection... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Discussion | A discussion was held regarding Catherine Conrad's potential status as a suspended lawyer, prompt... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square. | Foley Square towards Duane ... | View |
| N/A | Legal task | A team within a law firm, supervised by Ms. Trzaskoma, gathered information about potential juror... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Discussion | Discussion between the speaker, Ms. Edelstein, and Ms. Brune regarding Catherine Conrad and a Wes... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation between Brune and Trzaskoma regarding the vetting of Juror No. 1. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Walking conversation across Foley Square | Foley Square to Duane Stree... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Juror vetting | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A legal hearing for which the witness, Brune, is being questioned. The witness denies meeting wit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness (Brune) confirms having talked with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein on many occasions... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Collaboration | The witness (Brune) states they worked very hard with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein on the July... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Online search | Ms. Trzaskoma performed a Google search which resulted in finding a document. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Research on Catherine Conrad | Law Firm | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal team discussion regarding whether to inform Judge Pauley about the juror's potential status. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Trzaskoma performed a Google search on Juror Catherine Conrad and found a document indicating... | Court / Legal Office | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation while walking to 52 Duane | En route to 52 Duane | View |
| N/A | Telephone conference | Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court on May 15th. | Court (via telephone) | View |
| N/A | Jury selection preparation | A team at Brune's firm, including Ms. Trzaskoma and two lawyers from San Francisco, gathered info... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Ms. Trzaskoma reviewed the voir dire responses of Juror No. 1 to determine if they could be the s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | An investigation that Ms. Trzaskoma asked to be done on May 12th. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Discussion | Ms. Trzaskoma and the witness discussed the possibility that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer n... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation while walking to 52 Duane regarding Juror No. 1's potential identity as a suspended ... | En route to 52 Duane | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jury selection, specifically the third day of voir dire. | court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting of the July 21st letter. | Unknown | View |
| 2025-11-05 | Meeting | A conversation took place regarding a suspended lawyer having the same name as a juror. | the plaza | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009237.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, featuring Ms. Trzaskoma's testimony during redirect and recross-examination. The questioning primarily concerns information about juror Catherine Conrad, specifically when Ms. Trzaskoma became aware of Conrad's background as a suspended lawyer with a criminal record and civil lawsuit, and whether this information was properly disclosed during the trial. The Court also inquires about a juror replacement event on May 16th during deliberations, and Ms. Trzaskoma denies any intent to mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions Schoeman about a conversation he had on or after May 13th with Ms. Trzaskoma, in which she allegedly rejected the idea that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. After Schoeman is excused, attorney Mr. Parse calls Barry Berke, from the same law firm, as the next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010101.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript concerning the direct examination of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1' (Ms. Conrad). They discussed whether the juror might be a disbarred lawyer with the same name, but concluded she was not based on her educational background revealed during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010096.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 22, 2022. In it, a judge questions a witness about their law firm's obligation to disclose information, referencing a July 21 letter. The questioning also covers the court's decision to replace Juror No. 11 during deliberations and whether the witness considered raising a separate issue concerning Juror No. 1, which had been previously discussed with a Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Edelstein, by an attorney, Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses on why Ms. Edelstein and her colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, did not inform the court after discovering that a juror, Juror No. 1, shared the same name as a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad. Ms. Edelstein testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' they were the same person and therefore saw no reason to bring it to the court's attention.
DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing testimony about the jury selection process. A witness explains why they and others decided not to further investigate a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, despite Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern that she might be a suspended lawyer. The witness states that after reviewing Conrad's voir dire responses, they concluded it was a different person and found it "inconceivable" she would lie about her education.
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-00010047.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5764) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on the preparation of a 'July 21st letter' and whether the witness met with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein to prepare for the current hearing. Brune denies meeting for hearing preparation but acknowledges they worked closely to reconstruct events for the letter, specifically referencing an email with the text 'Jesus, I do think that it's her'.
DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010036.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about their knowledge of statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during a July 15th conference call. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Brune read the call transcript in relation to filing a letter on July 21st, implying that Brune may have known Ms. Trzaskoma's statements were incorrect. Brune denies this assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief, revealing that it omitted key information about a 'suspension opinion' and contained inaccuracies regarding the catalyst for an investigation, which was allegedly a letter from a Ms. Conrad. The transcript suggests that another individual, Ms. Trzaskoma, was responsible for drafting the facts in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010029.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 covers procedural timeline issues, specifically regarding jury deliberations that lasted eight days and whether the legal team could have raised issues regarding a 'suspended attorney' with the Court prior to the verdict. It references a conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma, Barry Berke, and Paul Schoeman.
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a 'Ms. Edelstein' inquired about a 'suspension opinion'. The transcript captures legal objections from attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis regarding the accuracy of a date (May 12th) and leading questions, with the judge clarifying the nature of the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00010027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness corrects a previous statement about a timeline, clarifying that Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court on May 15th, and that the witness first learned about the relevant voir dire on July 18th. The witness also describes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being a "very thorough person."
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-00010020.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 4, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune describes a conversation with colleagues Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein (Theresa) while walking to 52 Duane, concerning suspicions that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. They discuss the juror's background revealed during voir dire, specifically a personal injury suit in the Bronx, and the juror's use of legal concepts like 'vicarious liability' and 'respondeat superior' which the witness notes are out of place in a criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00010012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's recollection of the jury selection process, specifically an incident involving 'Juror No. 20' who wore an FBI turtleneck to court and whose mother worked for the FBI. The questioning also probes Brune's awareness at the time that a juror might have been a suspended attorney.
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-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-00010003.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her and her team's failure to conduct prior research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name was identical to one found in a New York court opinion. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team of nearly two dozen people to perform this additional research before the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00009999.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms that their legal team had arranged for and used internet and e-mail access in the courtroom throughout a trial, including during jury deliberations. Team members Lori Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma are identified as having used laptops in court for this purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00009993.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated March 22, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune is being questioned about his law firm's process for jury selection, confirming that his partner, Ms. Trzaskoma (also called Theresa), was heavily involved in the details of gathering information on jurors, while he maintained ultimate responsibility and a supervisory role. The effort was collaborative, also involving two lawyers from San Francisco.
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-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.
Inquiry about a lawsuit
The speaker called Mr. Benhamou to ask if he had received the lawsuit.
Inquiry about a lawsuit
The speaker called Mr. Benhamou to ask if he had received the lawsuit.
Newly discovered facts
Ms. Trzaskoma offered to submit a letter to the Court regarding facts that had recently come to light, if the Honor deemed it appropriate.
Potential identity of Juror No. 1
Ms. Trzaskoma informed the witness that she recalled a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1 and wondered if they were the same person. After reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, she concluded it was unlikely as the responses were inconsistent with being a lawyer.
Potential identity of Juror No. 1
Ms. Trzaskoma informed the witness that she recalled a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1 and wondered if they were the same person. After reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, she concluded it was unlikely as the responses were inconsistent with being a lawyer.
Identity of Juror No. 1
A conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Brune where Ms. Trzaskoma wondered if Juror No. 1 could be a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Ms. Brune testifies that they concluded it made no sense and that Ms. Trzaskoma did not mention a Westlaw report.
An issue being raised for the first time.
On May 15th, Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court where an issue was first raised. The witness, Brune, was out of the country at the time.
Juror No. 1's identity
Discussion about whether Juror No. 1 is a suspended lawyer based on a juror note and voir dire history.
Submission of letter
Your Honor, we were not aware of the facts that have come to light, and I think if your Honor deems it appropriate, we can submit a letter
Suspended attorney status
Discussion about the possibility that she was a suspended attorney.
Identity of Juror No. 1
Discussion while walking to 52 Duane about whether Juror No. 1 is a suspended lawyer based on voir dire answers and a personal injury suit.
Identity of Juror No. 1
Discussion regarding a disbarred lawyer with the same name as Ms. Conrad (Juror No. 1) and confirming they are different people based on educational background.
Identity of Juror No. 1
Discussion regarding whether Juror No. 1 could be Catherine Conrad, the suspended attorney.
Identity of Juror No. 1 / Ms. Conrad
Trzaskoma mentioned a disbarred lawyer had the same name as Juror No. 1/Ms. Conrad, but concluded it was not the same person because the juror's voir dire did not indicate law school education.
Unknown topic related to case
Conversation occurred after a juror's note was received.
Unknown
First e-mail sent out prompting research.
Suspension issue
Ms. Trzaskoma allegedly told Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue on May 12th.
Status of Juror No. 1
Ms. Trzaskoma told Mr. Schoeman that she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. Mr. Schoeman did not get an understanding of her reasoning but noted it was consistent with their pattern of sharing information during the trial.
The status of Juror No. 1 as a suspended attorney.
Ms. Trzaskoma told Mr. Schoeman that she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. Mr. Schoeman testified that he did not have an understanding of why she shared this information but that it was consistent with their pattern of sharing information during the trial.
Unknown legal matter
Ms. Trzaskoma handled a conference with the Court.
Westlaw Report
Discussed whether to pursue info on Conrad. Brune said 'no, just leave it.'
Catherine Conrad Lawsuit
Trzaskoma asked if he had gotten the lawsuit; Benhamou said they couldn't find it online.
An issue being first raised
A telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court where an issue was first raised. The witness corrects the date of this event to July 18th.
An issue being first raised
A telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court where an issue was first raised. The witness corrects the date of this event to July 18th.
Juror No. 1
The witness mentions a discussion that took place in a park on May 12 with Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity