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-00009409.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning concerns whether Edelstein was aware of an internal investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma prior to receiving a specific letter, particularly focusing on knowledge possessed on May 12th regarding a 'suspended lawyer.' Edelstein denies awareness of an investigation on that date, admitting only to knowing about a suspended lawyer with a specific name.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg

This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022, where a witness named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a legal brief. The questioning centers on whether Edelstein was aware that her colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, had already investigated an individual named Catherine Conrad before the final version of the brief was written. The testimony references specific passages from the brief concerning Conrad's credibility and the justification for the investigation.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009404.jpg

This document is page 343 of a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein (likely regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the context of juror misconduct). The testimony details legal strategy discussions between Edelstein and Susan Brune regarding a juror who shared a name with a suspended lawyer. They discussed how to address their knowledge of this potential identity match in a legal brief drafted by Theresa Trzaskoma.

Deposition transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009403.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about their role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein discussed with colleagues, specifically Susan Brune, the inclusion of certain facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on or about May 12th. Edelstein confirms having such a discussion about what to include in the brief prior to the receipt of a 'juror letter'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript / deposition
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009400.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein performed Google research on 'May 12th' regarding a suspended New York attorney named Catherine Conrad, after allegedly being tipped off by Theresa Trzaskoma. The witness denies having Conrad's phone number on that date and clarifies the specific information received from Trzaskoma.

Court transcript / deposition
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009398.jpg

This document is a court transcript of testimony given by a witness named Edelstein. He recounts receiving a 'surprising and shocking' letter from a juror, which he found disturbing due to its odd tone. Edelstein discusses his process of connecting the contents of this letter with information previously provided by Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12, and his subsequent conversation about the letter with his partner, Randy Kim.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009396.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (page 335) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Edelstein is being questioned regarding their role in the defense of David Parse, specifically concerning email exchanges involving Theresa Trzaskoma and David Benhamou regarding Robert Conrad. The testimony also touches on the witness's involvement in voir dire (jury selection) and the receipt of a 'Catherine Conrad letter' or dossier.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009393.jpg

This document is a transcript of testimony from an individual named Edelstein. Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of a dossier or information gathered on Catherine Conrad. The witness recalls a conversation on June 20th with Theresa Trzaskoma about the information and being directed to a memo from a paralegal, David Benhamou, but denies characterizing the information as a 'dossier' and is uncertain about the exact timeline of events relative to a July 15th conference.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal transcript / court testimony
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009388.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing a Q&A session. Edelstein questions a witness about the identity of 'Catherine Conrad,' specifically investigating if two individuals with that name, one identified as 'Juror No. 1,' are the same person. The discussion also covers the firm's knowledge regarding Juror No. 1's identity and the involvement of Theresa Trzaskoma in related inquiries.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about their knowledge of another person's (Ms. Trzaskoma) suspicion. The core issue is whether Ms. Trzaskoma believed there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney with the same name, and whether the witness ever asked for the evidence underlying this suspicion. The witness states they did not ask for underlying documents or information.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009384.jpg

This document is a legal transcript of testimony given by Ms. Edelstein. She is questioned about whether her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her on May 12 about potential misconduct by Juror No. 1. Ms. Edelstein denies being told that Trzaskoma believed the juror was a suspended New York attorney and claims she cannot recall the specifics of their conversation.

Legal transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009344.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony covers the credibility of government witnesses (lawyers who pleaded guilty to false statements to the IRS), the division of labor regarding jury selection between Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma, and a specific conversation they had at 'the plaza' regarding potential information.

Court transcript / legal testimony
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009322.jpg

This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding preparations for jury selection (voir dire). The questioning focuses on the timeline of receiving information, including a juror list, research from the Nardello firm, and a 2010 suspension opinion concerning Catherine M. Conrad. Brune clarifies that the opinion was discussed on the morning of court in the presence of jury consultant Dennis Donahue, rather than definitively before the start of voir dire.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg

This court transcript excerpt details the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, who is an officer of the court. She is questioned about her ethical obligations regarding juror misconduct and a specific conversation on May 12, 2011, with Theresa Trzaskoma. The conversation concerned whether a juror who sent a note with legal terms was a lawyer previously identified through a Google search.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009320.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5716) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness, identified as Brune, is being questioned about the legal team's use of technology and personnel during the trial, specifically mentioning Donna Kane from Decision Quest regarding graphics. The testimony confirms that team members Theresa Trzaskoma and Lori Edelstein had laptops and internet/email access in the courtroom during voir dire and jury deliberations.

Court transcript (witness 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

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

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

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

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

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

Information gathering/Dossier

From: Edelstein
To: Theresa Trzaskoma

Discussion about information gathered regarding Catherine Conrad.

Conversation
0020-06-01
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

Unknown

From: Randy Kim
To: Theresa Trzaskoma

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

Email
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

Investigation results

From: Theresa Trzaskoma
To: Edelstein

Results of an investigation regarding a suspended lawyer.

Report
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