Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Judge Pauley

Person
Mentions
146
Relationships
25
Events
42
Documents
72
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
25 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Conrad
Juror judge
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Ms. Conrad
Juror judge
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Brune
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person Ms. Brune
Professional
8 Strong
3
View
person Ms. Conrad
Legal representative
7
2
View
person Conrad
Professional
7
3
View
person PAUL SHECHTMAN
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Susan E. Brune
Professional
6
2
View
person Conrad
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Ms. Conrad
Judicial
5
1
View
person Catherine Conrad
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Catherine Conrad
Juror judge
5
1
View
person Ms. Brune
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Stanley J. Okula, Jr.
Professional
5
1
View
person Laurie Edelstein
Professional
5
1
View
person Ms. Conrad
Professional witness juror judge
5
1
View
person The Answerer
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Unnamed witness
Professional
5
1
View
person MR. OKULA
Professional
5
1
View
person Conrad
Judicial interaction
5
1
View
person Stanley J. Okula, Jr.
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Conrad
Juror judge implied
5
1
View
person Conrad
Juror judge
1
1
View
person Conrad
Judicial
1
1
View
person Redacted AUSA
Professional
1
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A Voir dire Judge Pauley explained the purpose of voir dire to the jury pool (venire), including Ms. Conrad. Federal Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Judge Pauley disclosed and read a note from Juror No. 1 after summations were completed. Court 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 Jury selection A past voir dire process is discussed, where the plan was for Judge Pauley to question potential ... N/A View
N/A Trial A trial in which Conrad served as a juror and David Parse was a defendant. N/A View
N/A Jury selection The voir dire process for jury selection is discussed, during which Judge Pauley would have quest... Courtroom (implied) View
N/A Trial A trial proceeding where a witness (Brune) is being questioned about a juror's behavior and a not... Court View
N/A N/A Voir Dire for US v. Daugerdas Courtroom View
N/A Oath Witness Conrad swore to Judge Pauley on March 2nd that she lived in Bronxville. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Conference call with Judge Pauley Unknown View
N/A Legal proceeding (voir dire) The jury selection process for a trial that was expected to be very long. A key issue was the ava... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding (trial) A three-month long trial for which the jury selection discussed in the document was conducted. N/A View
N/A Jury selection (voir dire) A past event where potential jurors, including Catherine Conrad, were questioned by Judge Pauley.... Courtroom 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 N/A Court proceeding where Ms. Brune is excused and Laurie Edelstein is called as a government witness. Courtroom (Southern District) View
2021-11-16 N/A Voir Dire (Jury Selection) District Court View
2012-02-15 Voir dire / jury selection Judge Pauley questioned Conrad about their residence history and property ownership, during which... Courtroom View
2012-02-15 Court appearance/testimony The witness, Ms. Conrad, is testifying under court order. Courtroom View
2012-02-15 Jury selection (voir dire) Conrad was questioned as a potential juror and deliberately lied about his educational background... Courtroom View
2012-02-15 Voir dire (jury selection) A jury selection process where Judge Pauley questioned potential jurors, including Conrad. During... Courtroom View
2012-02-15 N/A Cross-examination of Ms. Conrad in United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. Courtroom View
2012-02-15 N/A Court testimony of Ms. Conrad regarding her juror service. Courtroom View
2011-12-23 N/A Previous court interaction mentioned where a financial affidavit was discussed. Courtroom View
2011-12-23 Court event Judge Pauley provided a financial affidavit form to Conrad to determine her eligibility for an ap... Courtroom View
2011-12-20 Meeting Conrad made a statement to Judge Pauley. N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00009926.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, including her assets of approximately $14,000, her past earnings as a lawyer, and her tax filing history. The attorney attempts to scrutinize her financial success and challenges the truthfulness of a prior affidavit she submitted to a disciplinary committee, while Ms. Conrad is often evasive in her answers.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009924.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 646-10) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad by Mr. Gair regarding her conduct in a previous hearing before Judge Pauley, specifically concerning her financial inability to retain counsel and her remark that a financial affidavit form was 'garbage'.

Court transcript (exhibit)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009922.jpg

This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case United States v. Daugerdas, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The witness, a suspended lawyer, is being aggressively questioned about her defiant behavior toward Judge Pauley during a previous hearing regarding her role as a juror, as well as inquiries into her mental health, specifically bipolar disorder. The witness is evasive, frequently claiming she is not a psychologist and giving sarcastic answers, such as stating she takes 'Water' when asked about medications.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the direct examination of an unnamed witness by an attorney named Conrad regarding the witness's prior statements in court, where they called a defense motion 'ridiculous' and made comments to Judge Pauley about his background. The witness is largely uncooperative, frequently claiming a lack of recall, leading to a tense exchange about their motives and credibility.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009920.jpg

This document is a condensed transcript (pages 109-112) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (2012), ostensibly filed as Exhibit A-5637 in the later Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad, focusing on her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and a previous erratic court appearance on December 20th before Judge Pauley. The questioning highlights her bizarre statements to Judge Pauley regarding Duke University football and 'Clinton appointments,' seemingly to attack her credibility or mental state.

Court transcript (condensed)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.

Legal document (court transcript/deposition)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009918.jpg

This document contains transcript pages 101-104 from the case United States v. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. The witness, Catherine M. Conrad, a former juror in the case, initially asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege regarding her previous voir dire testimony but is subsequently granted immunity by the Court. Under questioning by attorney Mr. Gair, Conrad admits to lies and omissions during her jury service selection in 2011 and confirms she called Judge Pauley's chambers earlier that morning to state she would not attend court.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009915.jpg

This document is a table of contents (Page xii) from a court filing filed on August 11, 2022. It lists historical legal documents from 2012 and 2013 related to the case of United States v. David Parse, including affidavits, sentencing memoranda, restitution calculations for Jenkens and Gilchrist clients, and correspondence between attorney Paul Shechtman and Judge Pauley. The document appears to be part of a larger appendix or record on appeal released via FOIA (DOJ-OGR).

Table of contents / legal index
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document index
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009910.jpg

This document is an index page (page vii) from a court filing, listing various evidentiary exhibits labeled GX (Government Exhibits) and DX (Defense Exhibits). The exhibits include correspondence from 1998-2003 involving individuals such as Lisa Hurley, James Beumel, and Erwin Mayer, as well as internal communications involving Deutsche Bank and Jenkens & Gilchrist (J&G). The document also lists legal motions from 2011 regarding a new trial and evidentiary hearing concerning 'Juror No. 1'.

Legal index / table of contents (appendix)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009907.jpg

This document is an index or table of contents from a legal case file, specifically page 'iv' of a larger document. It lists various court documents, including trial transcripts from May 2011, correspondence between legal professionals and a judge, a defendant's motion, and a list of the government's trial exhibits. The exhibits include financial records from Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown and correspondence dating back to 2001, involving individuals such as defendant David Parse, Matt Coleman, and C.R. Gibb.

Legal document index
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009828.jpg

This document is page 30 of a court filing (Doc 643) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It is likely a government response arguing against a retrial, specifically refuting the defendant's claims that 'Juror 50' lied about social media accounts or held implied bias. The text distinguishes the current situation from the 'Daugerdas' precedent and asserts that even if the juror had answered truthfully about social media, they would not have been struck for cause.

Court filing / legal memorandum (post-trial motion response)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009338.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding. It discusses a note sent by Juror No. 1, which Judge Pauley disclosed after counsel had summed up.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009336.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process for a lengthy, three-month trial. The questioning focuses on the decision not to challenge a potential juror with a criminal history and confirms that juror availability was a significant issue, which Judge Pauley addressed with the jury pool from the beginning.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009327.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about her jury selection process, specifically regarding why she did not ask Judge Pauley to clarify discrepancies found in "Google-type information" about jurors. Ms. Brune admits she was aware she could have requested the judge to inquire further but chose not to.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009326.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Brune, who is being questioned about her assessment of potentially significant information regarding a juror and whether it should have been raised with a Judge Pauley. The transcript includes legal objections and rulings, indicating a contentious line of questioning.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
1
As Recipient
19
Total
20

Investigative firm involvement

From: Unknown
To: Judge Pauley

Discussion regarding who was involved in the case/investigation.

Conference call
N/A
Communication Source

Legal correspondence

From: Paul Schechtman
To: Judge Pauley

Letter listed in index (Page A-6161)

Letter
2013-03-22
Communication Source

Unknown

From: Paul Schechtman
To: Judge Pauley

Legal correspondence

Letter
2013-03-22
Communication Source

Legal correspondence

From: Paul Schechtman
To: Judge Pauley

Letter listed in index (Page A-6115)

Letter
2013-03-18
Communication Source

Unknown

From: Paul Schechtman
To: Judge Pauley

Legal correspondence

Letter
2013-03-18
Communication Source

Unknown

From: PAUL SHECHTMAN
To: Judge Pauley

Legal correspondence

Letter
2013-03-07
Communication Source

Legal correspondence

From: PAUL SHECHTMAN
To: Judge Pauley

Letter listed in index (Page A-5930)

Letter
2013-03-07
Communication Source

Court appearance

From: Ms. Conrad
To: Judge Pauley

Witness told the Judge he was being 'stupid', mentioned Duke University, and claimed the prosecution's motion was ridiculous.

Court appearance/statement
2011-12-20
Communication Source

Legal Representation

From: Judge Pauley
To: Conrad

Judge Pauley advised Conrad to get a lawyer and discussed appointing one if she qualified financially.

Hearing
2011-12-20
Communication Source

Attaching Westlaw Report

From: Susan E. Brune
To: Judge Pauley

A letter was sent from Susan E. Brune to Judge Pauley, attaching a Westlaw Report.

Letter
2011-07-21
Communication Source

Attaching Westlaw Report

From: Susan E. Brune
To: Judge Pauley

A letter was sent from Susan E. Brune to Judge Pauley, attaching a Westlaw Report.

Letter
2011-07-21
Communication Source

Legal Correspondence

From: Stanley J. Okula, Jr.
To: Judge Pauley

Letter to Judge

Letter
2011-06-22
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Laurie Edelstein
To: Judge Pauley

A letter sent from Laurie Edelstein to Judge Pauley.

Letter
2011-05-08
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Laurie Edelstein
To: Judge Pauley

A letter sent from Laurie Edelstein to Judge Pauley.

Letter
2011-05-05
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Laurie Edelstein
To: Judge Pauley

A letter sent from Laurie Edelstein to Judge Pauley.

Letter
2011-05-04
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Stanley J. Okula, Jr.
To: Judge Pauley

A letter sent from Stanley J. Okula, Jr. to Judge Pauley.

Letter
2011-05-03
Communication Source

Voir Dire / Residence

From: Conrad
To: Judge Pauley

Stated she resided in Bronxville

Court testimony
2011-03-02
Communication Source

Conviction of Parse

From: Conrad
To: Judge Pauley

Conrad stated 'in my mind Parse should not have been convicted of number 1'.

Statement/meeting
0020-12-01
Communication Source

Court Appearance

From: Ms. Conrad
To: Judge Pauley

Conrad told Judge Pauley he was being 'stupid' and referenced a 'Clinton appointment'.

Meeting
0020-12-01
Communication Source

Residency

From: Conrad
To: Judge Pauley

Swore she lived in Bronxville.

Sworn statement
0002-03-01
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search