Catherine M. Conrad
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Departmental Disciplinary Committee
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Catherine M. Conrad's father
|
Friend |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
her counsel
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Juror defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Departmental Disciplinary Committee
|
Adversarial regulatory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Victor M. Serby
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Firm (Defense)
|
Potential juror |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Jury selection | A past voir dire process is discussed, where the plan was for Judge Pauley to question potential ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Provision of jury list containing Catherine M. Conrad's name to the firm. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The voir dire process for jury selection is discussed, during which Judge Pauley would have quest... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceedings in US v. Daugerdas involving the examination of witnesses Trzaskoma and Conrad | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Catherine M. Conrad is called as a witness, granted use immunity after asserting her Fifth Amendm... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court proceeding involving the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. ... | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing where Catherine Conrad is granted immunity and examined regarding juror misconduct. | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-06-24 | Record update | Attorney Registration Information for Catherine M. Conrad was current as of this date. | N/A | View |
| 2011-06-24 | Legal filing | Attorney Registration Information for Catherine M. Conrad was recorded. | N/A | View |
| 2011-03-01 | Court testimony | Catherine M. Conrad gave testimony under oath during voir dire for the trial of United States v. ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-03-01 | N/A | Trial of United States v. Daugerdas where Conrad was present. | Courtroom | View |
| 2011-03-01 | N/A | Voir dire/Jury selection where Conrad took an oath. | Courtroom | View |
| 2010-12-09 | Legal proceeding | Legal case 'In the Matter of Catherine M. Conrad, 80 A.D.3d 187' (1st Dep't). | N/A | View |
| 2010-12-09 | N/A | Initial suspension of attorney for failure to respond to requests. | New York | View |
| 2010-12-09 | N/A | Court decision regarding the suspension and reinstatement of Catherine M. Conrad. | New York | View |
| 2010-12-09 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the court case 'In the Matter of Catherine M. Conrad, 80 A.D.3d 187 (1st Dep't)'. | N/A | View |
| 2010-05-01 | N/A | Re-evaluation of respondent obtained. | New York | View |
| 2010-01-01 | Medical evaluation | A subsequent re-evaluation of respondent Catherine M. Conrad was conducted. | N/A | View |
| 2009-11-01 | N/A | Psychiatric evaluation of respondent obtained. | New York | View |
| 2009-01-01 | Medical evaluation | The Committee obtained a psychiatric evaluation of respondent Catherine M. Conrad. | N/A | View |
| 2007-12-18 | N/A | Court suspended respondent from practice of law for failure to respond to requests. | New York | View |
| 2007-12-18 | Legal proceeding | Legal case 'In the Matter of Catherine M. Conrad, 48 A.D.3d 187' (1st Dep't). | N/A | View |
| 2007-12-18 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the court case 'In the Matter of Catherine M. Conrad, 48 A.D.3d 187 (1st Dep't)'. | N/A | View |
| 2007-12-18 | Legal event | The Court suspended respondent Catherine M. Conrad from the practice of law for failure to respon... | First Judicial Department | View |
| 2000-01-26 | N/A | Catherine M. Conrad admitted to the practice of law. | New York | View |
EFTA00018373.pdf
Defense counsel Bobbi Sternheim requests Judge Nathan to release the names of 600 potential jurors to attorneys only, prior to voir dire, to facilitate background research and ensure a fair trial. The letter cites precedent involving juror misconduct (US v. Parse) and a recent order from the Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' civil case (Sines v. Kessler) where juror names were released to counsel despite high publicity and security concerns. The document includes the cited order from the Western District of Virginia as Exhibit A.
DOJ-OGR-00009274.jpg
This document is a court transcript index from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012. It has been filed as an exhibit (Document 616-1) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely as a legal precedent or impeachment material regarding witness testimony. The page lists the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, along with a list of Government and Defense (PMD) exhibits received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009258.jpg
This document is a transcript from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of witness Catherine Conrad (also known as Catherine Rosa), focusing on her credibility, her indefinite suspension from the practice of law, her alcoholism, and her arrest for petit larceny in 2009. The testimony reveals she submitted inaccurate medical reports regarding her sobriety to support her petition for reinstatement to the bar.
DOJ-OGR-00009239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of witness Catherine M. Conrad, who initially pleads the Fifth Amendment regarding her prior testimony from March 2011. After being granted use immunity by the court, Conrad admits under questioning that her previous testimony as a prospective juror contained both omissions and lies.
DOJ-OGR-00009232.jpg
This document is an index of exhibits for a legal filing known as the 'Trzaskoma Declaration,' filed on February 24, 2022. The exhibits consist of various personal and legal records pertaining to Catherine M. Conrad, spanning from 1998 to 2011. These records include court case documents, a marriage certificate to Frank Rosa, property records like a deed and mortgage, and criminal history information.
DOJ-OGR-00010124.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a 2010 New York court decision (Slip Op. 09090) regarding the suspension of attorney Catherine M. Conrad. The text details her suspension due to alcohol dependency and mental infirmity, denying her immediate reinstatement but converting her suspension to medical grounds. While part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cv-03388-PAE) likely related to the Epstein/Maxwell litigation, this specific page serves as a legal precedent or exhibit regarding attorney conduct and fitness.
DOJ-OGR-00010123.jpg
This document is a Westlaw printout of a 2010 New York Supreme Court Appellate Division decision (Matter of Catherine M. Conrad). It details the disciplinary proceedings against attorney Catherine M. Conrad, ruling that her immediate reinstatement to the bar was not warranted due to alcohol dependence and a failure to cooperate with previous investigations. The document appears to be an exhibit (A-5840) filed in a later case (Case 1:20-cv-00888), likely as legal precedent or evidence regarding attorney conduct.
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'.
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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00010069.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness is being questioned about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma. The discussion focused on whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person as a suspended lawyer named Catherine M. Conrad. The witness testifies that Ms. Trzaskoma, after reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, concluded they were not the same person because the answers were inconsistent with the juror being a lawyer.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00010003.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her and her team's failure to conduct prior research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name was identical to one found in a New York court opinion. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team of nearly two dozen people to perform this additional research before the voir dire process.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009953.jpg
This document is a transcript index and exhibit list from the case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.,' dated February 15, 2012. It outlines the examination of witnesses Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad by attorneys Hernandez, Shechtman, Gair, and Okula. It also lists Government Exhibits (4, 5, 9, 14, 28) and PMD (Paul M. Daugerdas) Exhibits admitted into evidence. The document is stamped with a 2022 filing date (Case 1:20-cv-00335-PAE), indicating it was submitted as an exhibit in the Giuffre v. Dershowitz case.
DOJ-OGR-00009918.jpg
This document contains transcript pages 101-104 from the case United States v. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. The witness, Catherine M. Conrad, a former juror in the case, initially asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege regarding her previous voir dire testimony but is subsequently granted immunity by the Court. Under questioning by attorney Mr. Gair, Conrad admits to lies and omissions during her jury service selection in 2011 and confirms she called Judge Pauley's chambers earlier that morning to state she would not attend court.
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-00009445.jpg
This legal document is a court order from the First Judicial Department regarding attorney Catherine M. Conrad. The court grants the Departmental Disciplinary Committee's motion to suspend Conrad indefinitely due to a medical disability related to her admitted alcohol dependency. The court denies Conrad's cross-motion for immediate reinstatement, stating she has not yet met the burden of proving her fitness to resume the practice of law.
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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009390.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a witness, Edelstein, recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma. The discussion focused on whether Juror No. 1 was the same individual as a suspended lawyer named Catherine M. Conrad. Edelstein testifies that while Ms. Trzaskoma initially considered the possibility, she concluded they were not the same person after reviewing the juror's voir dire responses, which were inconsistent with being a lawyer.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009374.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a redirect examination by an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report concerning a person named Catherine M. Conrad, verifying her name, birth year (1969), and age (41) against a jury list provided before voir dire. Attorneys Gair and Shechtman raise objections during the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009328.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (likely related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, given the case number) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, identified as 'Brune' (likely defense attorney Susan Brune), is testifying about the defense team's jury research process, specifically regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad. Brune admits that the investigative firm Nardello did not search for Conrad and discusses the timing of when the team focused on the juror's middle initial relative to a letter disclosed by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009324.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, regarding the jury selection process. The questioning focuses on why Brune and her team of nearly two dozen people failed to conduct additional research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name matched that of an individual in a New York court opinion.
Attendance at court
Informed the clerk she would not be coming to court that day.
Court appearance
On the morning of her testimony, Catherine M. Conrad called Judge Pauley's chambers and informed the deputy clerk that she would not be coming to court that day.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity