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-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-00010078.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a deposition (Case 1:20-cv-00335-AJN) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the witness discovering that an individual named Catherine Conrad was a suspended lawyer by searching Google and the New York State Bar Association website. The witness confirms finding a 2010 Appellate Division order and verifying an address in the Bronx/Parkview Drive.
DOJ-OGR-00010075.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a deposition or testimony, involving a person named Edelstein. The questions revolve around Edelstein's involvement in the trial for the defense of David Parse, email exchanges mentioning Robert Conrad, Theresa Trzaskoma, and David Benhamou, and the receipt of a 'dossier' or a link to one, possibly related to a Catherine Conrad 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-00010072.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the timeline of when the legal team became aware of information regarding 'Juror No. 1' and an individual named Catherine Conrad. The witness discusses a conversation with colleague Theresa Trzaskoma (who was overseas) on June 20th following the receipt of a letter from Juror No. 1, and the subsequent review of a memo prepared by paralegal David Benhamou.
DOJ-OGR-00010067.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript involving the questioning of a witness named Edelstein. The line of questioning focuses on an investigation into 'Juror No. 1,' specifically regarding confusion or verification between a 'suspended New York attorney' named Catherine Conrad and the juror, Catherine M. Conrad. The witness denies asking colleague Theresa Trzaskoma for the suspended attorney's middle initial to distinguish between the two individuals.
DOJ-OGR-00010066.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a person named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a potential conflict of interest involving Juror No. 1. The juror shares the same name, Catherine Conrad, as a suspended New York attorney. Ms. Edelstein explains that she dismissed the possibility of them being the same person because the juror stated during voir dire that her highest level of education was a BA in English, which she believed ruled out the possibility of her also being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00010049.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 22, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. The questioning centers on the jury selection process, specifically whether Ms. Brune's firm was aware that Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Ms. Brune testifies that they believed her sworn answers during voir dire ruled this out and that they would not have wanted a suspended lawyer on the jury for a case involving lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00010046.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on jury research conducted for jury selection, a specific telephone call on July 22nd with a judge regarding a juror connected to Catherine Conrad, and the witness's failure to identify "Mr. Nardello's firm" during that call. The transcript concludes with the witness confirming their firm resisted a subsequent government discovery request by filing a brief claiming the information was protected as client work product.
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-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00010007.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 24, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the due diligence performed during jury selection (voir dire), specifically admitting that the witness did not launch a full-scale private investigation into every juror and confirming that the investigative entity 'Nardello' did not search for juror Catherine M. Conrad of Bronxville. The witness also discusses the timing of when the government disclosed a letter sent by the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010004.jpg
This page is a court transcript excerpt featuring the cross-examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her failure to inform the Court about a Google search revealing a prospective juror, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits the information was significant but confirms she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time. The document is filed under case 1:20-cv-08130.
DOJ-OGR-00010002.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness named Brune is being questioned about jury selection. Brune recounts how a colleague, Theresa, found a suspended lawyer on Google with the same name as a potential juror, Catherine Conrad. Brune then describes a strategic discussion with a jury consultant who advised striking Conrad from the jury, fearing she would be overly focused on personal responsibility rather than the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00009936.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It features the direct examination of a witness, Catherine Conrad, by attorney Mr. Gair. The questioning focuses on impeaching Conrad's credibility by highlighting her history of alcoholism, pancreatitis, and a suspension from the practice of law by the Appellate Division for 'shocking disregard for the judicial system' and mental/physical disability. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, often associated with document releases related to high-profile inquiries, though the specific link to Epstein in this fragment appears to be the document batch source rather than direct content.
DOJ-OGR-00009917.jpg
This document is a court transcript from *United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas* dated February 15, 2012. It details a hearing regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, who intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues for the courtroom to be closed to protect Conrad's privacy regarding alcohol dependence and disciplinary records, but the Court denies this request, citing that the information is already public.
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-00009911.jpg
This document is a table of contents for exhibits attached to a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' in a legal case. The exhibits primarily concern an individual named Catherine Conrad (also referred to as Catherine M. Conrad and Catherine Morgan Conrad) and include various legal and personal documents. These documents range from a 1998 criminal court disposition to a 2007 marriage certificate and a 2011 letter, suggesting a compilation of background information for a legal proceeding.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009515.jpg
This legal document, dated March 7, 2013, from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, argues for a lower sentencing guideline for a client. It contests the Probation Office's preliminary calculation, which suggests a 292-365 month sentence based on a $1.5 billion tax loss. To support its argument, the document cites a letter from a juror detailing the conviction of David Parse, suggesting his conviction was limited to "backdating" transactions and not a broader conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00009505.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Page 27 of the specific session, Page 86 of the filing) filed on February 24, 2022. It marks the conclusion of a hearing where The Court thanks counsel (Ms. Davis) for arguments on a motion and states that the decision is reserved. The text mentions reliance on statements made by Catherine Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, involving an individual named Mr. Parse accused of defrauding the government. An attorney, identified as CAC3PARC, argues before a judge about the nature of a mistake made in the case and, more significantly, about the interpretation of a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad. The attorney contends that under Rule 606(b) and precedent from a Third Circuit case, the note cannot be used to infer prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
This document is page 82 of a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as an exhibit (A-5925) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The text captures a legal argument by Ms. Davis referencing the 'Parse' case (likely United States v. Parse) and a letter from juror Catherine Conrad. The argument focuses on the legal distinction between 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' in the context of tax evasion and conspiracy counts, and how the jury's split verdict demonstrates a lack of prejudice and a deliberate decision-making process. This appears to be a citation of precedent used during post-trial motions in the Maxwell trial.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, referenced in a question about receiving a dossier.
Facts concerning the Catherine Conrad letter
A 'Catherine Conrad letter' is discussed in the context of what the firm knew prior to its receipt.
No Subject
A letter from Catherine Conrad, the receipt of which is used as a time marker in the questioning.
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.
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.
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.
Jury discussions and deliberations regarding David Parse
Discussed deliberations regarding David Parse and the struggle regarding definitions of wilfully and knowingly.
Unknown
Referred to as the 'Catherine Conrad letter'.
Unknown
Letter included her phone number at the top.
Unknown
Reference to receiving 'the letter of Catherine Conrad'.
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
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.
Unknown
No preview available
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