DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010121.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 381) from a court transcript filed on August 17, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It lists the schedule of examinations (Direct, Cross, Redirect, Recross) for four individuals: Susan Brune, Laura Edelstein, Paul Schoeman, and Barry H. Berke, conducted by attorneys Davis, Shechtman, and Okula.
DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Daugerdas case, referenced in Epstein/Maxwell filings regarding juror misconduct precedents). The defense (Parse, Field) and the government rest their cases in an evidentiary hearing. The Judge requests post-hearing briefs specifically addressing whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard satisfied ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1'.
DOJ-OGR-00010107.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 21, 2022, featuring the direct examination of attorney Barry H. Berke by Mr. Shechtman. Berke testifies about his employment history at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel and the Federal Defenders office, and confirms he was a lawyer present in the courtroom during the trial of David Parse. The document bears a DOJ-OGR bates stamp, suggesting it was released as part of a Department of Justice records request.
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010101.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript concerning the direct examination of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between Schoeman and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1' (Ms. Conrad). They discussed whether the juror might be a disbarred lawyer with the same name, but concluded she was not based on her educational background revealed during voir dire.
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-00010072.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving a witness named Edelstein. The testimony focuses on the timeline of when the legal team became aware of information regarding 'Juror No. 1' and an individual named Catherine Conrad. The witness discusses a conversation with colleague Theresa Trzaskoma (who was overseas) on June 20th following the receipt of a letter from Juror No. 1, and the subsequent review of a memo prepared by paralegal David Benhamou.
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-00010061.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the case number 1:19-cr-00338) featuring testimony from a witness named Brune and statements by prosecutor Mr. Okula. Okula addresses the court to correct the record regarding Ms. Brune's speculation, stating that the government did not conduct independent 'Google research' upon receiving a specific note because they viewed it as innocuous and not a Brady violation. He clarifies that the government only realized the significance of the information when the defendants filed a motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010050.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the strategic decisions regarding a juror (Ms. Conrad), specifically regarding her status as a recovering alcoholic and potential misconduct involving lying during voir dire. The witness confirms receiving a letter from Ms. Conrad to Mr. Okula in June 2011 but states her firm did not consider raising a juror misconduct issue at that time because she did not believe misconduct had occurred.
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-00010029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers procedural timeline issues, specifically regarding jury deliberations that lasted eight days and whether the legal team could have raised issues regarding a 'suspended attorney' with the Court prior to the verdict. It references a conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma, Barry Berke, and Paul Schoeman.
DOJ-OGR-00010021.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on a past conversation between Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding 'Juror No. 1,' specifically investigating whether the juror was actually a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they concluded it was 'inconceivable' for a lawyer to lie under oath about their identity and denies that a Westlaw report was mentioned during their conversation.
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-00010014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-03388-LAK) featuring the direct examination of an individual named Brune. The testimony focuses on the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically discussing a joint defense agreement and the reliance on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge when challenging potential jurors. The witness is also asked if they recall a 'Mr. Aponte' and a juror with a criminal background.
DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00009992.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving an attorney named Brune. Brune testifies to representing a male client since 2004, expressing a strong personal connection, care for the client, and a belief in his innocence regarding a criminal case. The testimony also establishes Brune's leadership role as a named partner at the law firm Brune & Richard.
DOJ-OGR-00009991.jpg
This page contains court testimony from a witness named Brune regarding the ethics of legal defense. Brune discusses the concept of 'forceful advocacy' and denies raising issues with the Court without believing they had merit. The examination concludes with a transition to questions regarding a former client named David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009983.jpg
This document is a cover or separator page from a legal hearing transcript, identified by case number 1:20-cv-00883-PAE-SN. The document was filed on March 23, 2022, and indicates it is page 515 of a larger set. It identifies the court reporting service as 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.' and bears the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009983.
DOJ-OGR-00009978.jpg
This document is a page from a 'Min-U-Script' word index (concordance) for a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, in the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The index lists words starting with 'S' through 'T', including names such as Sternheim (who testified), Stetler, Susan, Swan, Swann, and Sweeney, along with their frequency and line references in the transcript. The document bears a DOJ-OGR stamp, indicating it was processed as part of a Department of Justice release, potentially related to the Epstein/Maxwell document productions where this case may have been cited or included.
DOJ-OGR-00009975.jpg
This document is Page 7 of 30 from a court transcript index (concordance) filed on February 24, 2022, for the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. Checks against the index indicate the transcript is from proceedings on February 15, 2012. The page lists the frequency and page:line citations for words beginning with 'recross-examination' through 'revised'.
DOJ-OGR-00009964.jpg
This document is a single page from a transcript index (concordance) for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.', dated February 15, 2012. It was filed as Exhibit A-5681 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) on March 21, 2022. The page lists keywords alphabetically from 'experienced' to 'following' (including 'FBI', 'federal', 'felony', 'financial', 'firm') alongside the page and line numbers where they appear in the original transcript. While filed in the Maxwell/Epstein docket, the content originates from the Daugerdas tax fraud case.
DOJ-OGR-00009960.jpg
This document is a concordance (word index) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It lists words alphabetically from 'communication' to 'counseled' along with line and page numbers where they appear in the full transcript. Notably, the name 'Conrad' appears 192 times, indicating this individual was a primary subject of the testimony recorded on that date.
DOJ-OGR-00009955.jpg
This document is a keyword index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' It lists occurrences of specific numbers (including dollar amounts like $12,000 and $14,000) and their corresponding page and line numbers in the transcript. While the document header (Case 1:20-cr-00330) indicates it was filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial on February 21, 2022, the content pertains to the Daugerdas tax fraud case, likely serving as a reference or sample in the Maxwell proceedings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity