Ms. Edelstein
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Susan Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. DeRosa
|
Professional contentious |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Melissa Desori
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Theresa Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. DeRosa
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Conversation while walking to 52 Duane regarding Juror No. 1's potential identity as a suspended ... | En route to 52 Duane | View |
| N/A | Testimony/questioning | An unidentified questioner is cross-examining a witness, Ms. Edelstein, about the contents of a l... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Confrontation | A past event where Ms. Edelstein allegedly stood at a podium and raised her voice at Dr. DeRosa f... | podium | View |
| N/A | Discussion | Discussion between the speaker, Ms. Edelstein, and Ms. Brune regarding Catherine Conrad and a Wes... | N/A | 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 | Hearing | A legal hearing for which the witness, Brune, is being questioned. The witness denies meeting wit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The witness (Brune) confirms having talked with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein on many occasions... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Collaboration | The witness (Brune) states they worked very hard with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein on the July... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Ms. Edelstein looked at a letter, took a phone number from it, and verified it on the Bar website. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conversation while walking to 52 Duane | En route to 52 Duane | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Edelstein questioning Dr. DeRosa at a podium. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting of the July 21st letter. | Unknown | View |
| 2022-07-18 | Meeting | A discussion where Ms. Brune learned about the existence of a Westlaw report. | N/A | View |
| 2022-05-12 | Meeting | A conversation on the plaza regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1. | the plaza | View |
| 2022-02-16 | N/A | Jury Selection | Court context | View |
| 0012-05-01 | Conversation | A conversation occurred at the end of the court day as the participants were leaving court. | Foley Square, near 52 Duane | View |
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-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-00010047.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5764) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on the preparation of a 'July 21st letter' and whether the witness met with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein to prepare for the current hearing. Brune denies meeting for hearing preparation but acknowledges they worked closely to reconstruct events for the letter, specifically referencing an email with the text 'Jesus, I do think that it's her'.
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a 'Ms. Edelstein' inquired about a 'suspension opinion'. The transcript captures legal objections from attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis regarding the accuracy of a date (May 12th) and leading questions, with the judge clarifying the nature of the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00010027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness corrects a previous statement about a timeline, clarifying that Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court on May 15th, and that the witness first learned about the relevant voir dire on July 18th. The witness also describes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being a "very thorough person."
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-00009995.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, filed on March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness identifies attorneys (Melissa Desori, Ms. Edelstein, David Elbaum) and paralegals (Brendan Henry, Jenson Smith, Ariel Stoddard) who worked on a case referred to as the 'Parma matter'. The testimony clarifies the roles of these individuals, such as working on legal issues or expert testimony involving a Dr. DeRosa.
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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a cross-examination where Mr. Schectman is questioned by Ms. Edelstein. The questioning centers on why Schectman and his colleagues, Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma, failed to inform the court after discovering on May 12th that a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad shared the same name as Juror No. 1. Schectman defends their decision, stating they concluded it was 'inconceivable' that the juror was the same person, and denies any attempt to 'sandbag the Court'.
DOJ-OGR-00009368.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune denies meeting with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein specifically to prepare for the hearing but confirms they collaborated extensively on a July 21st letter to accurately reconstruct events. The questioning focuses on the extent of their communication and preparation regarding the issues before the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript from February 24, 2022, where a witness, Ms. Brune, is questioned about her knowledge of a "Westlaw report" and a "Google search." Ms. Brune states she learned about the Westlaw report on July 18th during a discussion with her colleagues, Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein. The questioning reveals the report was allegedly found or provided by a Mr. Benhamou on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009351.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a witness named Ms. Brune. She is being questioned about communications she had with defense counsel after receiving a copy of a letter from Ms. Conrad. Ms. Brune states these were 'joint defense communications' and recounts becoming upset by a jury note, after which her colleague, Ms. Edelstein, verified a phone number from the letter on the Bar website.
DOJ-OGR-00009349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune by Ms. Davis. The testimony centers on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a Ms. Edelstein asked to see a 'suspension opinion.' There is a legal dispute regarding a question about Ms. Trzaskoma informing Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue on May 12th, with the defense objecting to the accuracy of the date and the prosecution arguing they are permitted to lead an adverse witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009348.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Brune is undergoing direct examination. The witness corrects a previous statement about the timeline of events, clarifying that a key telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court occurred on July 18th, not earlier in May. The witness also characterizes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being very thorough in her work.
DOJ-OGR-00009341.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness by an attorney named Brune. The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein while heading to 52 Duane, where they speculated that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer, referencing a personal injury suit in the Bronx and legal concepts like vicarious liability.
DOJ-OGR-00009340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune testifies about their knowledge of research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma, stating they became aware of it on May 18th but knew on May 12th that she had found a disciplinary decision on Google. The transcript details a conversation on May 12th between Brune, Ms. Trzaskoma, and Ms. Edelstein that occurred after court near Foley Square.
DOJ-OGR-00009315.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony details the composition of the legal defense team, identifying specific partners and associates (Edelstein, Hollander, Kim, Stapp) and their respective office locations (San Francisco and New York). It also mentions communications regarding issues during jury selection.
Issues during jury selection
Communication regarding issues that came up during jury selection.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity