Westlaw
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010052.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Davis. During the examination, a document identified as Ms. Brune's "July 21st letter at the Court" is introduced as Government Exhibit 28. After opposing counsel, Mr. Shechtman, states he has no objection, the Court officially receives the exhibit into evidence.
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-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-00009981.jpg
This document is an index page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the legal case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. The index, prepared by Southern District Reporters, covers words from 'weeks' to 'younger' and lists their corresponding page and line numbers in the transcript. The index includes references to individuals named Weiss and Winslow, locations such as Westchester and York, and the legal research service Westlaw.
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-00009913.jpg
This document is an index of exhibits and legal filings, primarily related to the court case 'Conrad v. Manessis'. It lists various documents such as court orders, affirmations, testimony excerpts, affidavits, and correspondence dated between February 2009 and September 2011. The index provides a chronological overview of key submissions and events in the litigation, referencing individuals like Susan E. Brune, Judge Pauley, and Victor M. Serby, as well as entities like the Federal Election Commission.
DOJ-OGR-00009912.jpg
This document is an index of exhibits (13 through 23) from a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' filed in a legal case. The exhibits consist of various legal and criminal records, including court dispositions, police records, and filings related to individuals named Catherine Conrad, Catherine Rosa, and Frank Rosa. Several exhibits pertain to the civil case 'Conrad v. Manessis' in Bronx County, New York, with filings dated between 2003 and 2009.
DOJ-OGR-00009483.jpg
This document is a court transcript page where a speaker, identified as CAC3PARC, is addressing a judge ('Your Honor'). The speaker analyzes the actions of an unnamed woman who, along with her two senior colleagues, failed to report critical information to the court during a trial, an act the speaker and judge agree was a 'tragic misjudgment'. The speaker argues that an investigation should have occurred or the court should have been immediately notified, but instead, the issue was dismissed and a new juror was later substituted without anyone connecting the events.
DOJ-OGR-00009477.jpg
This is the second page of a legal document from case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, signed by David Parse and notarized in Illinois on August 3, 2012. The text states that after a paralegal ran a Westlaw report, 'Brune lawyers' concluded that an individual named Conrad was not a suspended attorney and that the Court did not need to be informed. The document was officially filed with the court on August 7, 2012.
DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009425.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a former Assistant U.S. Attorney named Schoeman. The questioning centers on what Schoeman knew about allegations that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended attorney, referencing a potential Westlaw report and an internal firm email he claims not to have seen. Schoeman maintains he was unaware of the specific information and only took action by asking about the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009402.jpg
This is a court transcript page filed on February 24, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). A witness named Edelstein is being questioned about whether their legal team had the resources to investigate Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, specifically regarding a prior personal injury lawsuit she failed to fully disclose during voir dire. Edelstein admits they had the resources to call investigators (Nardello) but did not do so initially because they didn't believe the Catherine Conrad in the Westlaw report was the same person as the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009397.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Edelstein) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness discusses receiving a disturbing letter on June 20th from Catherine Conrad, a suspended lawyer, which contained insights into jury deliberations after a three-month trial. The witness describes discussing the letter and an Appellate Division order with Susan Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00009394.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2020. Edelstein is questioned about receiving a memo from David Benhamou via email while in San Francisco, which detailed information on 'Juror No. 1', an 'Appellate Division order', and a 'Westlaw report'. The questioning also reveals that Edelstein's partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, referred to the information as a 'dossier' and that Edelstein reviewed a suspension report concerning a Catherine M. Conrad from Bronxville.
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-00009391.jpg
This document is a legal transcript from a deposition where the witness, Edelstein, is questioned about the discovery of information regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Edelstein's side learned from a Westlaw report that the juror was a suspended attorney, referencing an email sent within the firm, a letter received on June 20, and a court conference on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009389.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2022. Edelstein is being questioned about his awareness that a juror, Ms. Conrad (Juror No. 1), was the same person as Catherine M. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. He states that he initially found it 'inconceivable' they were the same person and was not focused on her middle initial, and denies being told by Theresa Trzaskoma about reports or documents that would have clarified the juror's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00009381.jpg
This page is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features a redirect examination of a witness named Brune by the Court. The discussion centers on the vetting of 'Juror No. 1,' specifically whether the witness knew the juror was a suspended lawyer and why the witness did not alert the government to this possibility, assuming the government had also 'Googled' the jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009380.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the redirect examination of a witness named Brune, who is being questioned by the Judge about why his firm did not disclose knowledge regarding 'Juror No. 1.' Brune argues that the information was easily accessible via Google and assumed the government had also found it, specifically mentioning a letter the government received and a 'Westlaw report.'
DOJ-OGR-00009376.jpg
This document is a transcript of a redirect examination in a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is questioned about why they did not investigate an individual further, despite a Westlaw report indicating she was a suspended attorney. The witness explains their belief that the report had conflated two different people with the same name, and they were convinced the person in question was a 'Bronxville stay-at-home wife' and not the lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a redirect examination by an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report concerning a person named Catherine M. Conrad, verifying her name, birth year (1969), and age (41) against a jury list provided before voir dire. Attorneys Gair and Shechtman raise objections during the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009373.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 312, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) documenting the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis. The proceedings involve the identification and admission of 'Government Exhibit 28,' which is described as a July 21st letter written by Ms. Brune to the Court. Following the admission of the letter into evidence without objection from Mr. Shechtman, the questioning turns to a Westlaw report attached as an exhibit.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity