MR. SCHECTMAN
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A witness, Edelstein, is questioned by an attorney about their knowledge of Catherine Conrad's pr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination and redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein regarding knowledge of Ju... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial in which Conrad served as a juror and David Parse was a defendant. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Brune by an unnamed questioner, with objections from Mr. Schectman ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Redirect and recross-examination of witness Brune. | Implied to be a court in th... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Edelstein. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trip | The underlying trial in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding her understanding of 'significant informati... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Recross-examination of witness Brune regarding a fraud alert, Social Security numbers, and the di... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Laura Edelstein | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-05 | Meeting | A conversation took place regarding a suspended lawyer having the same name as a juror. | the plaza | 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 |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Brune regarding her understanding of 'significant information' conc... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Redirect and recross examination of witness Brune regarding their interpretation of a document, t... | Southern District | View |
| 2022-02-24 | N/A | Court proceeding where Ms. Brune is excused and Laurie Edelstein is called as a government witness. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court testimony | Recross-examination of witness Brune by Mr. Schectman and the Court. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-22 | Court proceeding | Testimony of witness Edelstein, being questioned by Mr. Okula in the presence of Mr. Schectman an... | N/A | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceedings in United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Conrad in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. The questio... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Court testimony of a juror, Ms. Conrad, being questioned about her background and potential biase... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Court hearing featuring the direct and cross-examination of witness/juror Ms. Conrad regarding he... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009268.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, of the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a juror/attorney) in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The header indicates this document was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), likely as a defense exhibit regarding juror misconduct precedents. The text details Conrad's affirmation that she followed Judge Pauley's instructions, her legal background from Brooklyn Law School, and her deliberations regarding witnesses Dr. DeRosa and Paul Shanbrom, and defendants Brubaker and Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding their service in a trial involving defendant David Parse. The questioning probes Conrad's impartiality, focusing on a post-verdict letter, their initial belief in the defendant's guilt, and whether their own past criminal history (including arrests for DUI and shoplifting) biased their judgment. Conrad consistently affirms that their final decision was based solely on the evidence and Judge Pauley's legal instructions, and that their personal history did not affect their ability to be fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of the United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct and cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad, regarding her failure to disclose significant personal information during jury selection, including her status as a suspended lawyer and her husband's extensive criminal record. The questioning explores whether she deliberately concealed this information and whether she held any bias that would have affected her judgment in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009264.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Conrad, by attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses intensely on a letter Conrad wrote to attorney Mr. Okula, specifically her choice of postage stamp and her decision to capitalize the words "our government," probing her motivations and opinions about other individuals involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010095.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 20, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein. The Court questions the witness about a July 21 letter sent to the court, asking if her law firm would have voluntarily disclosed information about an investigation into 'Juror No. 1' without being prompted. The witness begins to affirm that they expected the information to eventually be revealed.
DOJ-OGR-00010094.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.
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-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-00010071.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned by an attorney, Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's knowledge of a Westlaw report and a series of email exchanges on May 12th involving his partner, Randy Kim, and a Theresa Trzaskoma. These emails allegedly led Trzaskoma to believe that 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, and the questioning also references a 'Jesus e-mail' and a July 15 court conference.
DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. In the transcript, a witness named Ms. Brune is excused by the court. The government's attorney, Mr. Okula, then calls a new witness, Laura Joy Edelstein, who is sworn in and begins her direct examination with a question about a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010058.jpg
This document is page 318 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00438-DAO) filed on August 24, 2022. It features testimony from Ms. Brune under redirect examination by Ms. Davis, discussing legal ethics regarding whether an attorney should raise non-meritorious arguments if the government omits them. Ms. Brune asserts she would disclose facts or arguments if put in issue by the Court or government.
DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning, led by the Court and involving attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis, covers a fraud alert related to two Social Security numbers and the ethical obligations of the witness's firm. A key point of discussion is whether the firm would have voluntarily disclosed information from a July 21 letter about an investigation into Juror No. 7 without being prompted by the Court or the government.
DOJ-OGR-00010056.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript detailing the redirect and recross-examination of a witness named Brune. Brune justifies not investigating a matter further by explaining that a document, which they viewed as similar to a credit report, only confirmed a pre-existing belief about two individuals sharing a name. The questioning then shifts, with attorney Mr. Schectman asking about redacted Social Security numbers on a document that Brune has seen in its unredacted form.
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-00010005.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on whether she understood certain information about a potential juror to be significant, particularly to a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes objections from attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman, and rulings from the presiding judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, containing the cross-examination of a juror named Conrad regarding her service in the trial of U.S. v. Daugerdas, et al. The questioning attorney probes Conrad's impartiality by referencing her past criminal record, her status as a suspended attorney, and a letter she wrote after the verdict. Conrad affirms that while she initially believed defendant David Parse was guilty, her final decision was based solely on Judge Pauley's legal instructions and was free from any bias.
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-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-00009409.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning concerns whether Edelstein was aware of an internal investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma prior to receiving a specific letter, particularly focusing on knowledge possessed on May 12th regarding a 'suspended lawyer.' Edelstein denies awareness of an investigation on that date, admitting only to knowing about a suspended lawyer with a specific name.
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-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-00009378.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The Court questions Brune about their firm's ethical obligation to disclose information from a July 21 letter concerning an investigation into Juror No. 1. Brune states that while they have an ethical duty to be accurate and honest, they do not believe they were obligated to proactively disclose the information or anticipate the government's arguments if the court had not inquired.
DOJ-OGR-00009377.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the testimony of a witness named Brune. During redirect and recross examination, Brune explains that a particular document resembled a credit report and merely confirmed a pre-existing belief, hence they chose not to investigate further despite their past training as an AUSA. The questioning then turns to redacted Social Security numbers on the document and what the witness learned from an unredacted version.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity