Catherine Conrad
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Correspondent |
7
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Her husband (unnamed)
|
Marital |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Stanley J. Oklua [sic], Esq.
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Stanley J. Oklua
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Potential identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Potential connection |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Identity under investigation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Correspondent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert Conrad
|
Familial implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Same person |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Suspected identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Supreme Court Appellate Division
|
Professional disciplinary |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Juror judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA Okula
|
Prosecutor juror communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nardello
|
Investigator subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Investigative subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire (jury selection) where it was learned that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, had been invo... | 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 |
| N/A | Court proceeding / deposition | Examination of Ms. Edelstein by Mr. Okula regarding the firm's knowledge of facts related to a go... | Southern District | View |
| N/A | Disciplinary proceeding | A pending disciplinary proceeding concerning Ms. Conrad's medical suspension held before the disc... | First Judicial Department | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | A jury had discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse, and struggled with the definition... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Litigation | A personal injury lawsuit that Catherine Conrad was involved in. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process during which a juror (Catherine Conrad) disclosed her involvement in a... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process during which a juror (presumably Juror No. 1) disclosed involvement in... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Voir Dire | Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony of witness Conrad in US v. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony regarding reinstatement and credibility. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceedings in USA v. Daugerdas; direct examination of Catherine Conrad. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Flight | Planned testimony of Ms. Conrad where she intends to assert her Fifth Amendment right against sel... | courtroom | View |
| 2011-05-25 | Correspondence | Letter from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua [sic], Esq. | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-25 | Communication | A letter was sent from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua, Esq. | N/A | View |
| 2011-05-24 | N/A | Jury deliberations where Juror No. 1 asked for clarification on 'willfully' and 'knowingly'. | Court | View |
| 2011-05-11 | Court proceeding | The Court read a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, during an afternoon session. | Court | View |
| 2011-05-11 | Court proceeding | The Court read aloud a note from Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad. | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-02-28 | N/A | Catherine Conrad submitted reinstatement papers to practice law. | Court | View |
| 2010-01-01 | N/A | Appellate Division order regarding Catherine Conrad. | New York | View |
| 2009-10-01 | N/A | Maxwell Institute reported witness was negatively discharged. | Maxwell Institute | View |
| 2009-08-01 | N/A | Witness kicked out of treatment program at Maxwell Institute for drinking. | Maxwell Institute | View |
| 2009-03-29 | N/A | Testimony of Catherine Conrad in disciplinary committee hearing (PMD Exhibit 17). | Supreme Court Appellate Div... | View |
| 2009-03-07 | Legal filing | Filing of a Note of Issue for the case Conrad v. Manessis. | N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County | View |
| 2009-01-19 | Legal filing | Filing of an Affidavit of Catherine Conrad for the case Conrad v. Manessis. | N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009257.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial *United States v. Daugerdas* (Feb 15, 2012), likely filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) to challenge the credibility of a juror (Catherine Conrad). The transcript details the cross-examination of Conrad regarding her suspension from the practice of law, her history of alcoholism, and her failure to disclose these facts to the court (specifically Judge Pauley). Several exhibits (PMD 14, 17, and 20) confirming her disciplinary history and medical issues are admitted into evidence during the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009246.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing an afternoon session where the Court addresses matters that arose during a luncheon recess, including a financial affidavit from Ms. Conrad and a voice mail she left stating she would not attend the hearing. The transcript also covers an examination by Mr. Gair and Mr. Okula regarding a prior conversation on December 20th with Judge Pauley about 'The Answerer's' financial ability to hire a lawyer and their personal finances, which 'The Answerer' claimed were irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Daugertas. The transcript details a legal argument regarding a request to close the courtroom for the testimony of a witness, Catherine Conrad, due to sensitive information about her alcohol dependency and disciplinary proceedings. The court denies the request, citing prior disclosures of the information and the defendants' right to a public proceeding. The transcript also reveals that Ms. Conrad intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, and counsel has submitted an application to compel her testimony with immunity.
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-00009232.jpg
This document is an index of exhibits for a legal filing known as the 'Trzaskoma Declaration,' filed on February 24, 2022. The exhibits consist of various personal and legal records pertaining to Catherine M. Conrad, spanning from 1998 to 2011. These records include court case documents, a marriage certificate to Frank Rosa, property records like a deed and mortgage, and criminal history information.
DOJ-OGR-00010194.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by Zuckerman Spaeder LLP addressed to Judge William H. Pauley, III, regarding the sentencing of David Parse. It disputes the Probation Office's sentencing guidelines which calculated a tax loss of $1.5 billion and a prison range of 292-365 months. The document includes a significant footnote quoting a letter from Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad) to AUSA Okula, detailing her hesitation in convicting Parse on conspiracy charges.
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 24, 2022) recording an argument by Ms. Davis (prosecution) against a motion for a new trial for defendant Mr. Parse. Davis argues that Parse received a 'platinum plated defense' and that his previous counsel (Brune & Richard) made a strategic decision to keep Catherine Conrad as Juror No. 1 despite knowing her identity, a choice that resulted in acquittals on some counts. The text discusses the 'Strickland standard' for ineffective assistance of counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00010134.jpg
This document is a page from a legal declaration or expert report authored by Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert. It analyzes a court transcript involving attorney Trzaskoma and the law firm Brune & Richard regarding their investigation of a juror named Catherine Conrad (Juror Number One). Gillers concludes that the lawyers' actions and disclosures to the court were entirely consistent with legal ethics rules.
DOJ-OGR-00010127.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 6, 2012, presents an opinion on the ethical obligations of Brune & Richard lawyers concerning disclosures related to a new trial motion involving juror Conrad. It concludes that the lawyers did not violate their ethical obligations in their research, motions, or communications with the Court. The opinion is based on a review of various legal documents and transcripts, and references the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 22, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Berke by attorney Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on why Berke did not further investigate a potential name match between Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer, Catherine Conrad, with Berke stating it was concluded they were different people based on the voir dire. After the examination, the witness is excused, and the court asks if the defense, representing a defendant named Parse, has any more witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00010115.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula poses a hypothetical question about what steps Berke would take if he discovered that a juror, specifically Juror No. 1, was a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Berke refuses to answer the question, stating it is a far-fetched and speculative scenario that he has never experienced.
DOJ-OGR-00010113.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning centers on whether Berke was aware of, or would have been interested in, a potential connection between 'Juror No. 1' and a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad, who had previously been involved in a personal injury lawsuit. Berke avoids answering the hypothetical question directly, stating an unwillingness to speculate.
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about Juror No. 1, specifically concerning a potential connection to a suspended New York attorney and the juror's past involvement as a plaintiff in a personal injury case. Berke denies being told details about the alleged connection but recalls discussing the juror's prior lawsuit.
DOJ-OGR-00010108.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of an individual named Berke. Berke testifies about events on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from Juror Catherine Conrad regarding jury instructions. Berke also discusses his professional relationship with another lawyer, Susan Brune, who represented David Parse in the same case, and recalls speaking with her about the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010099.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer and partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankl. Mr. Schoeman details his professional history, including his firm's representation of Raymond Craig Brubaker in a prior trial alongside his partner, Barry Berke. The questioning then focuses on a specific event on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad.
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-00010090.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the drafting of a legal brief. Edelstein testifies about a discussion with a colleague, Ms. Brune, regarding whether to disclose their prior knowledge of a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. The testimony centers on their intent and state of mind at the time, stating they were not focused on the legal concept of 'waiver' but rather on establishing facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010085.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about a brief they co-authored. The questioning focuses on whether the brief was intentionally written to mislead the reader about when Edelstein learned of Juror Catherine Conrad's suspension as a lawyer, particularly in relation to receiving a letter from the government. Edelstein admits the brief could be misread but denies any malicious intent, a claim the questioner challenges by referencing a specific decision made with a colleague, Ms. Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00010084.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00083-AJN) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about whether a legal brief she was involved with misleadingly suggested that her team only learned of an Appellate Division suspension report regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial) after receiving a letter or juror note. Edelstein admits the brief might convey that impression but denies any intent to mislead.
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-00010080.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing testimony about the jury selection process. A witness explains why they and others decided not to further investigate a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, despite Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern that she might be a suspended lawyer. The witness states that after reviewing Conrad's voir dire responses, they concluded it was a different person and found it "inconceivable" she would lie about her education.
Unknown
Referred to as the 'Catherine Conrad letter'.
Facts concerning the Catherine Conrad letter
A 'Catherine Conrad letter' is discussed in the context of what the firm knew prior to its receipt.
Juror's note
A juror's note written by Catherine Conrad is the subject of a legal argument regarding whether it can be used to infer prejudice in the case. The speaker argues that Rule 606(b) precludes drawing such inferences from the note.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, the receipt of which is used as a time marker in the questioning.
Case Deliberations
A note written by juror Catherine Conrad, the contents of which are being argued over to determine if they show prejudice. The speaker argues that Rule 606(b) precludes drawing inferences from this note.
Unknown
Letter included her phone number at the top.
Unknown
Reference to receiving 'the letter of Catherine Conrad'.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, referenced in a question about receiving a dossier.
Discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse
A letter from Catherine Conrad to the government, referenced in the defendant's briefing, which discussed deliberations concerning David Parse.
Jury discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse
Discussed deliberations regarding David Parse and the struggle regarding definitions of wilfully and knowingly.
Request for closed courtroom
Requesting that questioning concerning her medical suspension and disciplinary proceedings be conducted in a closed courtroom.
Request for closed courtroom
A letter from Catherine Conrad requesting that any questioning concerning her medical suspension and disciplinary proceedings be conducted in a closed courtroom.
Letter to the Government
Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government
Unknown
No preview available
Letter to the Government
Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, dated 5/25/11, is cited as the source of a quote from Juror No. 1.
No Subject
Exhibit 3 is a letter from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua [sic], Esq., dated May 25, 2011.
No Subject
Exhibit 3 is a letter from Catherine Conrad to Stanley J. Oklua, Esq., dated May 25, 2011.
Court Exhibit 3
A note from Catherine Conrad, listed as Court Exhibit 3.
PMD Exhibit 20
Order regarding suspension/discipline.
PMD Exhibit 17
Testimony regarding alcoholism and diagnosis.
Jury Deliberations
Letter providing insight into jury deliberations which 'disturbed and shocked' the recipient.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity