Bronx
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00022150.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated January 5, 2022, from attorney Jason E. Foy to Judge Analisa Torres, requesting a court order for the release of Tova Noel's firearm and other property. The letter explains that Noel's criminal charges were dismissed on January 3, 2022, and although she surrendered her firearm to the NYPD in 2019 as a condition of release, the NYPD property clerk refused to return it without a court order on January 4, 2022. The Government has expressed no objection to the proposed order.
DOJ-OGR-00009252.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. A witness, Ms. Conrad, is being questioned about providing conflicting residency information (Bronx vs. Bronxville) during jury selection. The questioning suggests she may have misrepresented her address to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and to potentially conceal a tumultuous home life.
DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial *United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas* (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN / Document 616-1), dated February 15, 2012. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad (likely a former juror, Catherine Conrad), who is being questioned about discrepancies in her stated residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) and potential bias. This document was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330), likely by the defense to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct and false statements during voir dire.
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-00010131.jpg
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
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-00010054.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination by Brune). The witness is being questioned about a document containing addresses (Bronx and Bronxville) and lawsuits. The testimony focuses on a specific entry on page 9 of that document, which lists Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' under 'Additional Individuals' rather than 'Head of Household.' The questioning also references email traffic from May 12th involving Ms. Trzaskoma identifying Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00010020.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 4, 2022) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune describes a conversation with colleagues Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein (Theresa) while walking to 52 Duane, concerning suspicions that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. They discuss the juror's background revealed during voir dire, specifically a personal injury suit in the Bronx, and the juror's use of legal concepts like 'vicarious liability' and 'respondeat superior' which the witness notes are out of place in a criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00009958.jpg
This document is page A-5675 of an index from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012, related to the court case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' (Case 2:09-cr-00582-ABN). The index lists keywords alphabetically from 'backdating' to 'came' and provides the page and line number references from the full transcript. The document was filed with the court on March 24, 2012.
DOJ-OGR-00009931.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' (2012), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It features the cross-examination of a witness named Conrad, a lawyer who served as a juror in a 'tax shelter case.' The questioning focuses on her credibility, specifically accusing her of lying about her residence (Bronx vs. Bronxville) to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and concealing her domestic disturbances on Barker Avenue.
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-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009375.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, specifically a redirect examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a document that contains addresses in the Bronx and Bronxville, lists of lawsuits, and a household description. The key point of the exchange is the identification of Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' within that household and corroborating this identification with prior email traffic from a Ms. Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009279.jpg
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as Exhibit A-5675 in the 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 24, 2022. The index lists names and terms appearing in the transcript, including significant mentions of 'Benhamou' (38 times), 'Brune' (48 times), 'Bronx' (43 times), and 'Bronxville' (47 times), along with their specific page and line citations.
DOJ-OGR-00003104.jpg
This document is page 170 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents a legal argument supporting the joinder of perjury charges with substantive offenses, citing the precedent of *United States v. Ruiz* regarding a NY State Senator who lied to conceal a financial scheme. The prosecution argues that, like in *Ruiz*, the current defendant's perjury was part of a common scheme to conceal her role in the charged sexual offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00003009.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the admissibility of certain evidence in the case against Epstein. It cites multiple legal precedents establishing that proof of lawful conduct on some occasions is irrelevant to disproving a specific criminal charge. The document applies this to the Epstein case, asserting that a prior investigation's findings about his conduct in the 2000s are irrelevant to the current charges from 1994-1997, and notes that two key victims were only interviewed for the first time in late 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing dated March 24, 2021, details a court's analysis of a dispute between the defendant, Schulte, and the Government over the proper 'relevant community' for jury selection. The court sides with the Government, ruling that the appropriate jury pool is the White Plains master wheel, which draws from all counties in the Southern District, rather than just those that supply jurors to Manhattan where the trial is to be held. This decision is based on legal precedent and the statutory composition of the judicial district.
DOJ-OGR-00002825.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated March 26, 2021, likely relating to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the timeline and context of jury selection in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It outlines the procedural mechanics of the 'Jury Plan,' detailing how master jury wheels are constructed from voter registration lists in specific NY counties (Manhattan, Bronx, Westchester, etc.) to ensure proportionate representation. A footnote clarifies qualification criteria for jurors, including English proficiency, citizenship, and exemptions for hardship or occupation.
DOJ-OGR-00008763.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 40) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It defines the legal concept of 'Venue' within the Southern District of New York and lists the specific counties included in that jurisdiction. The instruction clarifies that the Government must prove venue by a 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' stating that Maxwell must be acquitted of any specific offense if venue is not established for it.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027309.jpg
This document is a forensic log of digital messages from July 1, 2018, originating from a House Oversight investigation. The exchange is between a redacted individual and 'e:jeeitunes@gmail.com' (an email alias associated with Jeffrey Epstein). The conversation reveals a power dynamic concerning an unidentified male, with the redacted sender suggesting they want the man 'less afraid' of Epstein, to which Epstein replies, 'I want him MORE afraid of me.' Later messages mention 'Bronx tale' and someone named 'Miro' being in Beijing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014201.jpg
This document is page 75 from a contact book (commonly referred to as Epstein's 'Little Black Book'). It lists contact information (addresses, multiple phone numbers, emails) for individuals and entities alphabetically from 'Barrett' to 'Campos'. Notable entries include financier Leon Black, Jonathan Barrett of Luminus Management, and a handwritten entry for Michelle Campos with the annotation 'fired Soty.'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity