Westlaw
OrganizationRelationship Network
EFTA00032861.pdf
This document is an automated email notification from Westlaw sent on April 11, 2018. It confirms that a user (identity redacted) with the Client ID 'DOJ' (Department of Justice) sent a legal case file, 'U.S. v. Neill' (Citation: 952 F.Supp. 834), to a redacted recipient.
EFTA00031359.pdf
An email chain from July 22, 2020, between a legal team discussing a draft letter to Judge Netburn regarding an 'order on unsealing' in a case related to 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein). The team discusses technical difficulties with their VPN and Westlaw being down while trying to meet a filing deadline.
EFTA00031300.pdf
This document is an automated email notification from Westlaw dated November 30, 2021, sent to a redacted recipient (likely associated with the DOJ, based on the Client ID). It conveys a PDF attachment titled 'TITLE_18_INSIDER_TRADING' and cites a Yale Law Journal article (130 Yale L.J. 1828). The document appears to be part of a larger file release (Bates EFTA00031300), possibly related to Department of Justice research.
EFTA00029950.pdf
An email chain between US Attorney's Offices (NY Southern and likely GA Northern) dated March 30, 2021. The officials are discussing a notification from Westlaw regarding an application to unseal civil discovery materials related to Jeffrey Epstein (Reference No. 2018R01618). One official notes it is 'weird' that the order says it is sealed despite being publicly available on Westlaw.
EFTA00028478.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2020 between USANYS employees regarding discovery materials for the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Staff members are coordinating the location of physical and electronic files related to the Epstein investigation. A key detail emerges where a staff member notes the existence of emails with a US Marshal regarding Jeffrey Epstein's international travel and potential violations of the 'International Megan's Law.'
EFTA00021917.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 22, 2020, among a legal team discussing the urgent filing of a letter to Judge Netburn (and potentially Judge Nathan) regarding an order on unsealing and Local Rule 23.1. The team is experiencing technical difficulties, including VPN issues and Westlaw being down. Two attachments are referenced: one addressed to Judge Nathan regarding Rule 23.1 and another to Netburn regarding an unsealing order.
EFTA00021916.pdf
An email dated July 22, 2020, between members of a legal team discussing a draft letter to Judge Netburn regarding an order on unsealing documents (referenced in the attachment as 'JE', likely Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell case related). The sender notes urgency and technical difficulties with Westlaw.
EFTA00019095.pdf
An email thread from March 30, 2021, among DOJ officials discussing a Westlaw alert for a 'supposedly sealed order' related to Jeffrey Epstein and Boies Schiller. The thread clarifies that the document is actually a 2019 order recently unsealed in which Judge Netburn denied an application to modify a protective order in a civil case. The participants express confusion initially about why a sealed order appeared public.
EFTA00009796.pdf
This document is a printout from Westlaw containing the text of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705, a federal regulation regarding the "Use of official time" by government employees. It outlines rules preventing employees from using official time for non-official purposes and prohibits superiors from coercing subordinates to use official time for personal tasks. The document includes examples involving the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It appears to be reference material included in a larger legal file, potentially related to an ethics investigation.
EFTA00009794.pdf
This document is a Westlaw printout of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101, titled 'Basic obligation of public service.' It outlines the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, detailing 14 general principles including the prohibition of using public office for private gain, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining impartiality. The document appears to be part of a larger legal file (Bates stamped EFTA00009794-9795), likely included to establish the legal and ethical standards applicable to government officials relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00018607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a potential sequestration order violation has occurred. She expresses concern that a witness, Brian, was told information by another person, Jane, about a document shown during testimony. Ms. Menninger requests that the court question Brian under oath, outside the jury's presence, to determine the extent of the communication before he testifies.
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-00009234.jpg
This document is a table of contents or index of exhibits for a legal filing dated February 24, 2012, related to the case of Conrad v. Manessis. It lists various court documents, testimony, correspondence, and affidavits filed between 2009 and 2011. Key individuals mentioned include the parties Conrad and Manessis, as well as attorneys and witnesses such as Victor M. Serby, Catherine Conrad, Susan E. Brune, and Paul H. Schoeman.
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
This legal document discusses the standard for granting a new trial due to a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire. It cites the Second Circuit's application of the two-part test from the Supreme Court case *McDonough*, which requires showing both juror dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have provided grounds for a challenge for cause. The document refutes a defendant's argument by clarifying that the Second Circuit has rejected alternative interpretations and that the defendant's reliance on concurring opinions in *McDonough* is incorrect because a clear majority opinion exists.
DOJ-OGR-00010162.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker criticizes the past actions of an unnamed woman and her two senior colleagues. The speaker argues they failed to properly investigate or report information to the court, possibly due to exhaustion or intimidation, which the judge later termed a 'tragic misjudgment'. This failure to act ultimately led to the substitution of a juror several days later.
DOJ-OGR-00010156.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal affidavit signed by David Parse on August 3, 2012. The text discusses a conclusion reached by 'Brune lawyers' regarding an individual named Conrad, determining that Conrad was not a suspended attorney and that the Court did not need to be informed. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp and appears to be an exhibit in a later case.
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-00010081.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the questioning of an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness of a juror's (Catherine Conrad) past involvement in a lawsuit, information received from Theresa Trzaskoma via a Westlaw report, and the subsequent decision to hire Nardello to investigate after receiving a 'juror letter'.
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-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-00010070.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is questioned about their knowledge of a Westlaw report concerning Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad. The questioning establishes a timeline, indicating Edelstein reviewed the report after receiving a letter on June 20 but before a court conference on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma. The focus is on whether Edelstein personally noticed similarities between the juror and information in the report, such as her address and her father's name.
DOJ-OGR-00010060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 320) filed on March 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned by the Court regarding their decision not to inform the government that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. Brune explains they assumed the government, with its superior investigative resources and paralegals, had already 'Googled' the juror and reached their own conclusions.
DOJ-OGR-00010059.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, where a witness named Brune is questioned by a judge. The witness defends their firm's failure to disclose information by stating they assumed the information was easily discoverable via a Google search and that the government was already aware of it, particularly in relation to 'Juror No. 1'. The witness also claims ignorance of a 'Westlaw report' concerning the juror at the time.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity