Ms. Conrad
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Juror judge |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad's husband
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Deputy Clerk
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Observational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Grace
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Witness juror |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Brubaker
|
Juror defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Identity |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Pauley
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 1
|
Same person |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS
|
Juror defendant |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | A court trial where witness Brune was present every day and observed the jury. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | Judge Pauley explained the purpose of voir dire to the jury pool (venire), including Ms. Conrad. | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where the witness, Brune, was present every day and observed the jury, including Ms. Conrad. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | A past event where Ms. Conrad responded to questions, stating her highest level of education was ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process where Ms. Conrad was questioned and made omissions about her husband's... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Meetings | The witness met with Ms. Sternheim six times before the current date. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A past trial occurred, after which the witness 'Googled' the questioner. | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-20 | Court hearing | Ms. Conrad was asked by the Court if she owned any stocks or bonds, to which she replied "none of... | Federal Court | View |
| 2025-05-01 | Receipt of communication | The government received Ms. Conrad's letter. | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-30 | Communication | Receipt of Ms. Conrad's post-trial letter. | N/A | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Hearing | A list of appearances for a legal hearing, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District | View |
| 2021-11-16 | N/A | Voir Dire (Jury Selection) | District Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court session/inquiry | Afternoon session of a court inquiry, addressing matters that developed over the luncheon recess,... | Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Trial | A trial where Ms. Conrad and eleven other jurors rendered a verdict against Paul M. Daugerdas. | Federal Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court appearance/testimony | The witness, Ms. Conrad, is testifying under court order. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Ms. Conrad. | Federal Court, Southern Dis... | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Conrad by attorney Mr. Shechtman regarding her statements and om... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Court hearing featuring the direct and cross-examination of witness/juror Ms. Conrad regarding he... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing/Redirect examination of Ms. Conrad regarding juror misconduct. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Cross-examination of Ms. Conrad in United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Conrad regarding her juror service. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing regarding juror misconduct (Conrad). Witness excuses, arrest warrant discussed but ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing involving the redirect examination of Ms. Conrad regarding juror misconduct. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Direct examination of Ms. Conrad in US v. Daugerdas. | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Conrad regarding her sobriety and previous conduct. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination and dismissal of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjury and misrepresentation regarding her service as a juror. Defense counsel (Mr. Gair) characterizes her as a 'pathological liar.' The proceedings also involve discussions about calling a U.S. Marshal and a law student named Mr. Benhamou as witnesses, though the latter is dismissed to return to class. The document appears to be an exhibit filed in a later case (likely Giuffre v. Maxwell based on the 2022 filing stamp).
DOJ-OGR-00009270.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad (a former juror), who is being aggressively questioned about her failure to follow Judge Pauley's instructions and her admission of perjury during voir dire. The document is likely included in the Maxwell case files as a legal precedent regarding juror misconduct and the impact of untruthful answers during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009268.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, of the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a juror/attorney) in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The header indicates this document was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), likely as a defense exhibit regarding juror misconduct precedents. The text details Conrad's affirmation that she followed Judge Pauley's instructions, her legal background from Brooklyn Law School, and her deliberations regarding witnesses Dr. DeRosa and Paul Shanbrom, and defendants Brubaker and Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009264.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Conrad, by attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses intensely on a letter Conrad wrote to attorney Mr. Okula, specifically her choice of postage stamp and her decision to capitalize the words "our government," probing her motivations and opinions about other individuals involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009262.jpg
This document is a transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012, but released within an Epstein-related document dump (DOJ-OGR-00009262). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad (also known as Rosa), regarding a letter she wrote to prosecutor Mr. Okula on May 25, 2011, the day after a verdict was reached in a previous trial where she served as a juror. The questioning focuses on her anxiety to speak with the prosecution, discrepancies between her physical location (Barker Avenue) and the return address used (Parkview Drive), and her failure to contact defense attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00009252.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. A witness, Ms. Conrad, is being questioned about providing conflicting residency information (Bronx vs. Bronxville) during jury selection. The questioning suggests she may have misrepresented her address to appear more 'marketable' as a juror and to potentially conceal a tumultuous home life.
DOJ-OGR-00009249.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 616-1) in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 4, 2022. The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her conduct as a juror in a previous trial. She admits to omitting the fact that she possessed a Juris Doctor (JD) degree during jury selection (voir dire) and is questioned aggressively about whether this omission constituted a lie to the Court and Judge Pauley. The testimony also covers discrepancies regarding her stated residence (Bronxville vs. Bronx Village).
DOJ-OGR-00009246.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing an afternoon session where the Court addresses matters that arose during a luncheon recess, including a financial affidavit from Ms. Conrad and a voice mail she left stating she would not attend the hearing. The transcript also covers an examination by Mr. Gair and Mr. Okula regarding a prior conversation on December 20th with Judge Pauley about 'The Answerer's' financial ability to hire a lawyer and their personal finances, which 'The Answerer' claimed were irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00009241.jpg
This document is a condensed court transcript from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas', filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and her behavior during a previous court appearance before Judge Pauley on December 20th. The testimony highlights erratic statements Conrad previously made to Judge Pauley, including comments about his intelligence, his attendance at Duke University, and his potential desire for a 'Clinton appointment'.
DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Daugertas. The transcript details a legal argument regarding a request to close the courtroom for the testimony of a witness, Catherine Conrad, due to sensitive information about her alcohol dependency and disciplinary proceedings. The court denies the request, citing prior disclosures of the information and the defendants' right to a public proceeding. The transcript also reveals that Ms. Conrad intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, and counsel has submitted an application to compel her testimony with immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues that there is overwhelming evidence of defendant Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud via backdated transactions. She also contends that his background as a CPA is relevant to proving his intent. The transcript also references another attorney, Mr. Shechtman, and the testimony of Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein regarding their knowledge of a juror, which they allegedly tried to conceal from the court.
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-00010079.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of Catherine Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein could have researched Conrad on May 12th and clarifies that Edelstein's information came from Theresa Trzaskoma, who stated Conrad was a suspended lawyer but did not mention a specific 'suspension report'.
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-00010033.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a legal brief, revealing that it omitted key information about a 'suspension opinion' and contained inaccuracies regarding the catalyst for an investigation, which was allegedly a letter from a Ms. Conrad. The transcript suggests that another individual, Ms. Trzaskoma, was responsible for drafting the facts in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010016.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms being present for every day of a trial, having a direct view of the jury box, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being attentive and taking a lot of notes.
DOJ-OGR-00009984.jpg
This document is a page from a legal hearing transcript dated February 22, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00038-AEN. It lists the attorneys appearing on behalf of various parties: Caroline Rule and Sharon McCarthy for Defendant Field, Paul Shechtman and Adam Murphy for Defendant Parse, and Bobbi C. Sternheim for Ms. Conrad. The document also notes the presence of IRS Special Agent Christine Mazzella.
DOJ-OGR-00009950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a juror, Ms. Conrad. Attorney Mr. Shechtman questions her about why she made several omissions during jury selection, including failing to disclose her husband's criminal history. The questioning explores her motivations, such as a $40/day juror stipend, unemployment, and an intellectual curiosity for the courtroom, and challenges her distinction between an "omission" and a "lie".
DOJ-OGR-00009949.jpg
This document contains pages 225-228 of a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The text documents the redirect examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror, who is being aggressively questioned about whether she followed Judge Pauley's instructions and whether she perjured herself during voir dire (jury selection). Conrad admits to not following instructions regarding voir dire and acknowledges 'omissions,' but insists she rendered a fair verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009948.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (pages 221-224) from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. It features the testimony of Ms. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney who served as a juror in a complex tax shelter fraud case presided over by Judge Pauley. The questioning revolves around her motives for serving on the jury while suspended, specifically whether she used the service to demonstrate stability for her bar reinstatement petition, which she denies.
DOJ-OGR-00009927.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, her memory of prior court proceedings, and her past confrontational statements to the court, such as calling her husband a "convicted felon" whom she might retain as a lawyer and telling the court that her finances were "none of your business." Ms. Conrad's testimony is evasive and hostile, suggesting a contentious relationship with the court and the defendant's counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00009920.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (pages 109-112) from the case United States v. Daugerdas (2012), ostensibly filed as Exhibit A-5637 in the later Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The transcript features the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Conrad, focusing on her alcohol consumption (specifically 'cheap vodka') and a previous erratic court appearance on December 20th before Judge Pauley. The questioning highlights her bizarre statements to Judge Pauley regarding Duke University football and 'Clinton appointments,' seemingly to attack her credibility or mental state.
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing arguments made by MS. DAVIS regarding defendant Mr. Parse. MS. DAVIS asserts overwhelming evidence of Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, specifically mentioning his role in backdated transactions and the relevance of his CPA background. The transcript also references testimony from Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, and communications related to the case after a jury verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009422.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness by Mr. Schoeman. The testimony details a conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma while walking across Foley Square, concerning Juror No. 1 (Ms. Conrad). They discussed a disbarred lawyer with the same name as the juror but concluded it was a different person because the juror's educational background did not include law school.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-02-15 | Received | Unknown | Ms. Conrad | $40.00 | Mentioned in testimony: 'Maybe it just wasn't f... | View |
Unspecified
A letter received from Ms. Conrad which, according to the witness, marked the beginning of their knowledge on a particular subject.
Unknown
Stated 'I'm a purist and numbers don't lie' and expressed doubt about Mr. Shanbrom's testimony.
Unknown
A letter disclosed by the government that prompted an investigation.
Praise for legal work
A letter written by the witness, Ms. Conrad, to attorney Mr. Okula. The letter is the subject of extensive questioning regarding the choice of stamp and the capitalization of the phrase "our government." The letter praised Mr. Okula, Miss Davis, and Mr. Hernandez for doing an "outstanding job on behalf of our government."
Refusal to appear in court
Ms. Conrad told Judge Pauley's clerk that she was not coming to court.
Order to appear
Witness attributes her behavior to the stress of receiving a subpoena.
No Subject
Ms. Conrad included her phone number at the top of a letter sent to Mr. Okula.
Refusal to appear in court
Ms. Conrad told Judge Pauley's clerk that she was not coming to court.
Information about the jury
Ms. Conrad sent a letter to the government in May after the verdict, apparently concerning the jury.
Unknown
A letter from Ms. Conrad is mentioned as having prompted an investigation, which was later described in a legal brief.
Unknown
A letter from Ms. Conrad is mentioned as having prompted an investigation, which was later described in a legal brief.
No Subject
Ms. Conrad included her phone number at the top of a letter sent to Mr. Okula.
No Subject
A letter from Ms. Conrad to Mr. Okula, a copy of which was received by the witness, Ms. Brune. It contained a phone number.
Information about the jury
Ms. Conrad sent a letter to the government in May after the verdict, apparently concerning the jury.
Post-trial matter
A post-trial letter from Ms. Conrad was received on June 30.
No Subject
A letter received by the government after the verdict, related to the case.
Post-trial matter
A post-trial letter from Ms. Conrad was received on June 30.
Unknown
Ms. Conrad had a conversation with the Court's deputy at 7:52 a.m. on the day of the hearing.
Refusal to testify
Ms. Conrad told the deputy clerk that she would not be testifying today.
Refusal to testify
Ms. Conrad told the deputy clerk that she would not be testifying today.
Court appearance
Witness told the Judge he was being 'stupid', mentioned Duke University, and claimed the prosecution's motion was ridiculous.
Juror Misconduct
A letter from Ms. Conrad was received by Ms. Brune's firm around June 20th, 2011. The letter is the basis for questions about potential juror misconduct.
Unknown
Letter received by Brune's firm approximately three weeks after being posted to the government.
Post-verdict communication
Witness wrote to the prosecutor expressing a wish to have spoken with him; written on a computer with a made-up caption.
Court Appearance
Conrad told Judge Pauley he was being 'stupid' and referenced a 'Clinton appointment'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity