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-00009424.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman, filed on February 24, 2012. The questioning centers on why Schoeman did not conduct a more thorough follow-up investigation into a concern raised by Ms. Trzaskoma about a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a 'suspended attorney.' Schoeman states that the basis for the concern was simply that they shared the same name, and the issue was dismissed after reviewing voir dire responses.
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-00009422.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness by Mr. Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square, concerning Juror No. 1 (Ms. Conrad). They discussed a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the juror but concluded it was a different person because the juror's educational background did not include law school.
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-00009414.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.
DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. It features testimony from a witness named Edelstein regarding a discussion with Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1. They debated whether the juror was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad but concluded at the time that it was 'inconceivable' based on voir dire responses, specifically regarding education.
DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about their knowledge of another person's (Ms. Trzaskoma) suspicion. The core issue is whether Ms. Trzaskoma believed there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney with the same name, and whether the witness ever asked for the evidence underlying this suspicion. The witness states they did not ask for underlying documents or information.
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-00009368.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune denies meeting with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein specifically to prepare for the hearing but confirms they collaborated extensively on a July 21st letter to accurately reconstruct events. The questioning focuses on the extent of their communication and preparation regarding the issues before the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009358.jpg
This document is page 297 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by attorney Mr. Davis. The questioning focuses on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma regarding a 'suspension opinion' and a 'Westlaw report' that came to light before voir dire. Mr. Davis is pressing the witness to confirm that a Westlaw report was attached to a letter submitted to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009357.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's knowledge regarding a July 15th conference call and a July 21st letter, specifically probing whether Brune knew that statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during the call were incorrect. Brune denies having this knowledge and explains she read the transcript to understand a directive from Judge Pauley.
DOJ-OGR-00009355.jpg
Transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) proceedings, specifically the questioning of Ms. Brune regarding the vetting of Juror 'Conrad'. Ms. Brune testifies about the distinction between a 'database search' and a full 'investigation' conducted by her team (including Benhamou, Kim, and Stapp) on May 12th. The testimony highlights a disconnect in the legal team's knowledge, admitting that Ms. Trzaskoma knew about specific email traffic that Ms. Brune was unaware of when she filed a brief stating there was no basis to question the juror's honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009354.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief drafted by Ms. Trzaskoma and signed/approved by Brune, which allegedly omitted the fact that the defense had accessed a 'suspension opinion' during the trial. Brune admits to regretting the oversight but argues the investigation mentioned in the brief was genuinely prompted by a letter from Ms. Conrad, disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript from February 24, 2022, where a witness, Ms. Brune, is questioned about her knowledge of a "Westlaw report" and a "Google search." Ms. Brune states she learned about the Westlaw report on July 18th during a discussion with her colleagues, Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein. The questioning reveals the report was allegedly found or provided by a Mr. Benhamou on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune by Ms. Davis. The testimony centers on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a Ms. Edelstein asked to see a 'suspension opinion.' There is a legal dispute regarding a question about Ms. Trzaskoma informing Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue on May 12th, with the defense objecting to the accuracy of the date and the prosecution arguing they are permitted to lead an adverse witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009348.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Brune is undergoing direct examination. The witness corrects a previous statement about the timeline of events, clarifying that a key telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court occurred on July 18th, not earlier in May. The witness also characterizes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being very thorough in her work.
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-00009341.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness by an attorney named Brune. The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein while heading to 52 Duane, where they speculated that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer, referencing a personal injury suit in the Bronx and legal concepts like vicarious liability.
DOJ-OGR-00009340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune testifies about their knowledge of research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma, stating they became aware of it on May 18th but knew on May 12th that she had found a disciplinary decision on Google. The transcript details a conversation on May 12th between Brune, Ms. Trzaskoma, and Ms. Edelstein that occurred after court near Foley Square.
DOJ-OGR-00009339.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Witness 'Brune' is being questioned about when they became aware of research conducted by their colleague Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50). The testimony focuses on whether Brune was included in email traffic regarding this research prior to jury deliberations. Attorneys Schectman and Davis argue over the timestamp (West Coast vs East Coast) of a specific note.
DOJ-OGR-00009332.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why Brune and their team did not inform the court about information suggesting a juror was a suspended attorney. Brune explains that the information, found via a Google search by a colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was initially dismissed as pertaining to a different person and that they did not have a physical printout of the document in court.
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-00009324.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. The questioning focuses on why Brune and her team of nearly two dozen people failed to conduct additional research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name matched that of an individual in a New York court opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00009314.jpg
This document is a court transcript excerpt from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The testimony focuses on the roles and responsibilities for jury selection within Brune's law firm for a particular case. Brune clarifies that while they were ultimately responsible, a partner named Ms. Trzaskoma was more deeply involved in the details and supervised other lawyers in gathering information on potential jurors.
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