Mr. Schoeman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
RAYMOND CRAIG BRUBAKER
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Barry Berke
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Barry Berke
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | The trial of David Farse and other defendants. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Direct examination | Direct examination of Mr. Schoeman by Mr. Shechtman. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-05 | Communication | Ms. Trzaskoma allegedly informed Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about a suspension issue. | Unknown | View |
| 2025-05-13 | Conversation | Ms. Trzaskoma informed Mr. Schoeman that she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a s... | Unknown | View |
| 2012-02-24 | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Mr. Schoeman by attorney Mr. Shechtman. | Courtroom | View |
| 2009-01-01 | N/A | Mr. Schoeman returned to Kramer Levin. | Kramer Levin | View |
| 0012-05-01 | N/A | Alleged communication regarding a suspension issue involving Ms. Trzaskoma, Mr. Schoeman, and Mr.... | Unspecified | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010099.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer and partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankl. Mr. Schoeman details his professional history, including his firm's representation of Raymond Craig Brubaker in a prior trial alongside his partner, Barry Berke. The questioning then focuses on a specific event on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00010045.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 305) filed on May 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned about the disclosure of a private investigation firm, Nardello, in a legal brief and during a conference call with Judge Pauley. The testimony confirms that the Nardello firm performed jury research and investigative work pertaining to 'Juror No. 1' after a specific letter was received.
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-00009427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2012, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Schoeman. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, questions Mr. Schoeman about a conversation on or after May 13th, in which Ms. Trzaskoma told him she had rejected the conclusion that Juror No. 1 was a suspended attorney. The witness confirms the conversation but states he had no specific understanding of her reasoning, attributing the information sharing to their established pattern during the lengthy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009420.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of attorney Mr. Schoeman. The testimony focuses on establishing Schoeman's background and his involvement in a previous trial (United States v. Parse et al.) regarding a specific incident on May 11, 2011, involving a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad. This testimony is likely being used to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009365.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is testifying about a July 22nd phone call with the Judge regarding the identification of jury consultants, specifically mentioning Mr. Donohue, Julie Blackman, and Mr. Schoeman. The testimony clarifies that Mr. Nardello performed investigative work but was not a jury consultant.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity