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-00009419.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on February 24, 2022. In the proceeding, the Government (represented by Mr. Okula) rests its case after admitting Exhibit 10 into evidence. Subsequently, defense attorney Mr. Shechtman begins the defense case for 'Defendant Parse' by calling Paul Schoeman as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00009407.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript involving the questioning of a witness named Edelstein by Mr. Okula. The testimony centers on the drafting of a legal brief submitted for a new trial motion, specifically regarding when the defense team (Edelstein and Susan Brune) learned about an Appellate Division report relative to receiving a government letter. The questioning also highlights that the brief was signed by Brune in New York and Edelstein in San Francisco.
DOJ-OGR-00009404.jpg
This document is page 343 of a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein (likely regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the context of juror misconduct). The testimony details legal strategy discussions between Edelstein and Susan Brune regarding a juror who shared a name with a suspended lawyer. They discussed how to address their knowledge of this potential identity match in a legal brief drafted by Theresa Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009402.jpg
This is a court transcript page filed on February 24, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). A witness named Edelstein is being questioned about whether their legal team had the resources to investigate Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, specifically regarding a prior personal injury lawsuit she failed to fully disclose during voir dire. Edelstein admits they had the resources to call investigators (Nardello) but did not do so initially because they didn't believe the Catherine Conrad in the Westlaw report was the same person as the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009400.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein performed Google research on 'May 12th' regarding a suspended New York attorney named Catherine Conrad, after allegedly being tipped off by Theresa Trzaskoma. The witness denies having Conrad's phone number on that date and clarifies the specific information received from Trzaskoma.
DOJ-OGR-00009396.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 335) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Edelstein is being questioned regarding their role in the defense of David Parse, specifically concerning email exchanges involving Theresa Trzaskoma and David Benhamou regarding Robert Conrad. The testimony also touches on the witness's involvement in voir dire (jury selection) and the receipt of a 'Catherine Conrad letter' or dossier.
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-00009373.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 312, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) documenting the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Brune by Mr. Davis. The proceedings involve the identification and admission of 'Government Exhibit 28,' which is described as a July 21st letter written by Ms. Brune to the Court. Following the admission of the letter into evidence without objection from Mr. Shechtman, the questioning turns to a Westlaw report attached as an exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00009369.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 308) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned by Mr. Davis about a mistake in a legal brief regarding the timing of a Google search relative to receiving a letter. The testimony also confirms that David Parse was convicted of two charges and acquitted of four, and that the witness believed the jury rendered a fair verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009356.jpg
This is page 295 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Ms. Brune (likely Susan Brune, a defense attorney), is being questioned about a female partner in her law firm regarding ethical obligations and the review of a final brief. Brune confirms reviewing 'email traffic' leading up to the submission of a 'July 21st letter' to ensure material information was conveyed to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009355.jpg
Transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) proceedings, specifically the questioning of Ms. Brune regarding the vetting of Juror 'Conrad'. Ms. Brune testifies about the distinction between a 'database search' and a full 'investigation' conducted by her team (including Benhamou, Kim, and Stapp) on May 12th. The testimony highlights a disconnect in the legal team's knowledge, admitting that Ms. Trzaskoma knew about specific email traffic that Ms. Brune was unaware of when she filed a brief stating there was no basis to question the juror's honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009353.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5749) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune (likely an attorney), who admits to regretting a legal brief she filed under her signature which contained inaccurate or incomplete facts. She discusses the legal strategy at the time involving 'Mr. Parse' and references the 'Martha Stewart' case as a comparison for avoiding dismissal.
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-00009347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 286) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of Ms. Brune (likely a defense attorney), who is being questioned about her failure to bring Google search results regarding a juror to the Court's attention during or after voir dire. Brune defends her actions by stating she believed the information she found referred to a different person than the juror, based on the juror's sworn statements claiming to be a 'stay at home wife' rather than an attorney. Brune also affirms her obligation to the Court remains the same as when she was an Assistant US Attorney (AUSA).
DOJ-OGR-00009346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct examination of Brune) designated A-5742. The testimony concerns procedural events in court, specifically the restarting of jury deliberations due to a juror's illness and the presence of alternate jurors. The witness also discusses the illness of Mr. Rosenbaum and denies withholding an issue from the Court until Rosenbaum fell ill.
DOJ-OGR-00009344.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony covers the credibility of government witnesses (lawyers who pleaded guilty to false statements to the IRS), the division of labor regarding jury selection between Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma, and a specific conversation they had at 'the plaza' regarding potential information.
DOJ-OGR-00009343.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony centers on Ms. Brune's reasoning for not further investigating an individual (referred to as 'she') who might have been a suspended lawyer, citing reliance on sworn voir dire responses. The questioning attorney challenges this by pointing out that the indictment itself focused on the misconduct of lawyers and that several codefendants were lawyers.
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-00009335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically referencing a joint defense agreement among counsel and the collective nature of juror challenges based on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge. The questioning turns to a specific juror, Mr. Aponte, and begins to address whether he had a criminal history before the page cuts off.
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-00009325.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, Ms. Brune (a defense attorney), is being questioned about her failure to inform the Court during jury selection that a Google search revealed a prospective juror (or person with a similar name), Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00009310.jpg
This document is page 249 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune, an attorney, regarding the marketing and claims made on the website of their law firm, Brune & Richard. The questioning focuses on Brune's self-description regarding 'sound strategic choices,' 'meticulous preparation,' and 'forceful advocacy.'
DOJ-OGR-00009308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers Brune's professional background, specifically leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York in November 1997 to start the law firm Brune & Richard with Hillary Richard in February 1998. The witness confirms that while Hillary Richard has done criminal cases, she is primarily a civil lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009301.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 12 of 130) from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012, in the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas.' It was filed as Exhibit A-5697 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) on February 24, 2022. The page contains an alphabetical concordance of words used in the transcript (from 'Tylenol' to 'week'), including names like Viviann, Vivien, Walker, and Warren, along with their corresponding page and line numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00009300.jpg
This document is a concordance (word index) page from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' It was filed as Exhibit A-5696 in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) on February 24, 2022. The index lists words starting with 'T' (testify, Texas, Theresa, Trzaskoma, trial, etc.) alongside their corresponding page and line numbers in the original transcript. Notable entries include 'Trzaskoma' (mentioned 41 times) and 'trial' (mentioned 103 times).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity