Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Theresa Trzaskoma

Person
Mentions
92
Relationships
14
Events
39
Documents
45
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.
14 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Edelstein
Business associate
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Edelstein
Professional
10 Very Strong
15
View
person Brune
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person David Parse
Client
6
2
View
person Edelstein
Legal representative
6
2
View
person David Parse
Professional
5
1
View
person Randy Kim
Professional correspondence
5
1
View
person Edelstein
Co workers team members
5
1
View
person Unnamed witness
Business associate
5
1
View
person Ms. Edelstein
Professional
5
1
View
person Schoeman
Friend
5
1
View
person Ms. Brune
Business associate
5
1
View
person Catherine Conrad
Investigator subject
5
1
View
person David Benhamou
Communicated via email
1
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Investigation into Juror Identity New York (Implied) View
N/A Legal proceeding Jury selection for the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... View
N/A Meeting A discussion about whether to bring information about a juror to the Court's attention, resulting... the park View
N/A N/A Conversation at the plaza The Plaza 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 Court conference A court conference occurred on July 15. court View
N/A Court trial Testimony regarding a legal team's use of internet and e-mail in the courtroom during a trial, fr... courtroom View
N/A Legal proceeding The voir dire process, during which Theresa Trzaskoma learned about a suspended lawyer with the s... N/A View
N/A Information sharing Theresa Trzaskoma told the witness (Edelstein) that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine ... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Voir dire proceeding during which facts were learned. N/A View
N/A Conversation A conversation about a note from Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer. Centre Street View
N/A Investigation Theresa Trzaskoma conducted an investigation into Catherine Conrad, prompted by a letter and Conr... N/A View
N/A Meeting The witness, Schoeman, first met Theresa Trzaskoma. N/A View
N/A Trial The David Parse trial, in which Theresa Trzaskoma served as a lawyer. this courtroom View
2025-11-05 Information gathering Facts were learned from or by Theresa Trzaskoma. N/A View
2025-05-12 Legal proceeding Voir dire proceeding during which facts were learned by Theresa Trzaskoma. N/A View
2025-05-12 Investigation Theresa Trzaskoma conducted a 'little mini investigation' where she discovered a suspended lawyer. N/A View
2022-02-24 Legal proceeding / testimony / voir dire discussion A question-and-answer session (likely a deposition or court testimony) where Edelstein questions ... Implied to be within the So... View
2022-02-16 N/A Jury Selection Court context View
2021-11-01 N/A Court Conference Court View
2018-08-09 N/A conference Unknown View
2011-07-08 N/A Declaration Of Theresa Trzaskoma In Support Of Defendants' Motion For A New Trial Court View
2011-05-12 Conversation A discussion between Ms. Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma about information potentially related to Jur... N/A View
2011-05-12 Consideration Ms. Trzaskoma considered the possibility that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer named Conrad. N/A View
2011-05-12 Meeting Ms. Brune had a discussion with Theresa Trzaskoma about a juror's note and identity. N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00010155.jpg

This document is an affidavit filed by David Parse on August 7, 2012, in the criminal case *USA v. Daugerdas et al.* (Case 1:09-cr-00581). In the affidavit, Parse attests that during jury selection, he heard attorney Theresa Trzaskoma mention a juror had the same name as a suspended attorney but dismissed it as a coincidence. Parse states he only learned later (after a motion for a new trial was filed) that the issue of the juror ('Conrad') actually being the suspended lawyer had surfaced prior to deliberations. Note: While this document bears a DOJ-OGR stamp often associated with Epstein-related releases, the text strictly concerns the Daugerdas tax fraud case and juror misconduct.

Legal affidavit (court filing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010094.jpg

This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg

This document is a transcript from a legal deposition where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the timeline of their knowledge concerning certain facts. Edelstein clarifies that their understanding of the situation evolved, distinguishing between what was known on May 12th and what was known later when writing a legal brief. The testimony reveals that a letter received by Edelstein prompted an investigation into the matter.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010088.jpg

This document is a page from a legal deposition or court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness on May 12th of an investigation conducted by a colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, regarding a 'suspended lawyer'. Edelstein admits to knowing about the suspended lawyer on that date but denies being aware of Trzaskoma's investigation itself.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010082.jpg

This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about his role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on discussions he had with colleagues, Susan Brune and Randy Kim, concerning whether to disclose facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th. The timing of these strategic discussions, specifically whether they occurred before the receipt of a "juror letter," is a central point of the inquiry.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal transcript / deposition
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Transcript of legal proceeding (deposition or testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript / deposition
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal deposition transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010064.jpg

This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010001.jpg

This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding their legal team's preparation for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline and handling of key documents, including a juror list, questionnaires, research from the Nardello firm, and a specific '2010 suspension opinion' concerning Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms the opinion was discussed in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue before or during the voir dire process.

Deposition transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00010000.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune, an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations, specifically regarding information she discussed with Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, 2011, concerning Juror No. 1. The discussion revolved around a note the juror had sent about legal terms and whether that juror was a lawyer Trzaskoma had previously found via a Google search.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009999.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms that their legal team had arranged for and used internet and e-mail access in the courtroom throughout a trial, including during jury deliberations. Team members Lori Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma are identified as having used laptops in court for this purpose.

Court transcript
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-00009476.jpg

This is an affidavit from David Parse, a defendant in case S3 09 Cr. 581 in the Southern District of New York, filed on August 7, 2012. Parse states that he only became aware of a potential issue regarding a juror named Conrad being a suspended lawyer after his legal team, the Brune firm, had already filed a motion for a new trial. He specifies learning this information after a conference call on July 15, 2011, and recalls his lawyer, Theresa Trzaskoma, had previously dismissed a concern about a prospective juror having the same name during jury selection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009421.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript where the witness, Schoeman, is being questioned about his relationship with a lawyer named Theresa Trzaskoma. Schoeman explains that he met her around the year 2000 and they became family friends, and that he also had a prior professional connection to her husband from the law firm Paul Weiss. The witness confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma was a lawyer for David Parse during a trial.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.

Legal transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009413.jpg

This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Edelstein. The interrogation focuses on a phone call that occurred on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma and the Court, probing whether Edelstein's firm made an omission that could be considered a lie. The questioning also explores what the firm knew about certain facts prior to receiving a letter.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript featuring testimony by an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on when Edelstein and another individual, Theresa Trzaskoma, learned specific facts regarding a 'suspension' and whether this occurred via a Google search/investigation or after receiving a specific note/letter. Edelstein attempts to clarify the timeline of what was known on May 12th versus what was known when a legal brief was subsequently written.

Court transcript / deposition testimony
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
14
As Recipient
4
Total
18

Mini investigation

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Others in firm

Correspondence regarding the investigation.

Correspondence
N/A
Communication Source

Juror No. 1 / Catherine M. Conrad

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: ["Edelstein"]

A conversation between Edelstein and Ms. Trzaskoma is mentioned, during which Edelstein was questioned about what information was shared regarding Juror No. 1.

Conversation
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection / Information

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Ms. Brune

Discussion regarding jury selection details; questioner asks if Trzaskoma had an 'oh, Jesus' moment; Brune recalls telling her to 'leave it' or words to that effect.

Conversation
N/A
Communication Source

Suspended Attorney

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Edelstein

Discussion regarding a suspended New York attorney named Catherine Conrad.

Verbal conversation
N/A
Communication Source

Discovery of a suspended lawyer

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: ["others in your firm"]

The transcript mentions that Theresa Trzaskoma discovered information about a suspended lawyer through correspondence with others in her firm.

Correspondence
N/A
Communication Source

Juror No. 1

From: Edelstein
To: Theresa Trzaskoma

Discussion regarding Juror No. 1's responses to the voir dire.

Discussion
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Identity

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: David Parse or others

Statement that a prospective juror had the same name as a suspended attorney but was not the same person.

Oral statement
N/A
Communication Source

2010 suspension opinion related to Catherine M. Conrad

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: ["Brune"]

Theresa Trzaskoma is alleged to have told and shown the witness (Brune) an opinion about Catherine M. Conrad's 2010 suspension before the start of voir dire.

In-person communication
N/A
Communication Source

Draft of brief

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Edelstein

Sent a draft of the brief.

Document transfer
N/A
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Robert Conrad
To: Theresa Trzaskoma

Email exchanges identifying Robert Conrad as the father, involving Theresa Trzaskoma and David Benhamou.

Email exchanges
N/A
Communication Source

Potential identification of a juror as a lawyer

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: ["Brune"]

On May 12, Theresa Trzaskoma discussed with Brune her thought that a juror who sent a note with legal terms might be the same lawyer she had previously found via a Google search.

Discussion
2011-05-12
Communication Source

Potential identification of a juror as a lawyer

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: ["Brune"]

On May 12, Theresa Trzaskoma discussed with Brune her thought that a juror who sent a note with legal terms might be the same lawyer she had previously found via a Google search.

Discussion
2011-05-12
Communication Source

Gathered information

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: ["Edelstein"]

Edelstein had a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma on the night of June 20th, where Trzaskoma mentioned some information had been gathered.

Conversation
0020-06-01
Communication Source

Information gathering/Dossier

From: Edelstein
To: Theresa Trzaskoma

Discussion about information gathered regarding Catherine Conrad.

Conversation
0020-06-01
Communication Source

Investigation results

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Edelstein

Results of an investigation regarding a suspended lawyer.

Report
0012-05-01
Communication Source

Catherine Conrad

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Edelstein

Discussion regarding the suspended lawyer (content disputed/clarified by witness).

Conversation
0012-05-01
Communication Source

Unknown

From: Randy Kim
To: Theresa Trzaskoma

Exchanges regarding Juror No. 1 potentially being a suspended attorney.

Email
0012-05-01
Communication Source

Juror No. 1 being a suspended New York attorney

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Unknown

An e-mail allegedly sent by Ms. Trzaskoma on May 12, stating her thought that Juror No. 1 was a suspended New York attorney.

E-mail
0012-05-01
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