SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010219.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on March 11, 2022, related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The judge confirms on the record with Juror 50 and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his answers during jury selection. The court also acknowledges receiving a written application from the government, which is confirmed by government representative Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00010217.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on March 11, 2022, regarding a motion for a new trial for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The hearing's purpose, as stated by the court, is to examine the responses of 'Juror 50' to a jury selection questionnaire, following a court order from February 24, 2022. The transcript begins with counsel for the government, the defense, and Juror 50 stating their appearances for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00010216.jpg
This document is an appearance list for a court proceeding in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on March 8, 2022, in the Southern District of New York. It details the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and lists all attorneys representing the United States, the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, and Juror 50. The document also includes the case number and the court reporting agency.
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00010182.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed in the case regarding Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text captures an attorney's argument concerning 'ineffective assistance' of counsel, specifically debating whether keeping a specific juror—who was a suspended lawyer—was a strategic choice or a 'tragic misjudgment.' The latter half of the page shifts to discussing financial transactions executed in February or March specifically to generate tax losses.
DOJ-OGR-00010181.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 22, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, is arguing before a judge, refuting the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. Shechtman contends that the acquittal was the result of a split verdict caused by a single 'partisan' juror who was unable to convince the rest of the jury to convict, and that this outcome was not a benefit derived from her presence.
DOJ-OGR-00010180.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues against a motion for a new trial. She references a letter from Catherine Conrad about jury deliberations concerning David Parse, noting the jury struggled with the legal definitions of 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' but ultimately made a deliberate and informed decision, as evidenced by their verdict on conspiracy and tax evasion counts. The discussion highlights the legal nuances that influenced the jury's split verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010179.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 22, 2022. An unnamed speaker argues that Mr. Parse's implementation of end-of-year financial transactions was a knowing and criminal act to obstruct the IRS, not a simple mistake. Another speaker, Ms. Davis, addresses the judge, referring to additional evidence submitted in a written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00010178.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the content appears to stem from a separate tax fraud case involving Deutsche Bank (likely U.S. v. Daugerdas/Parse). The text details a closing argument or legal submission regarding 'tax shelter transactions' designed to defraud the IRS, specifically highlighting the roles of Deutsche Bank employees Mr. Parse and Carrie Yackee, and referencing testimony from Paul Daugerdas' secretary. The argument asserts that Parse and Yackee were the only ones at Deutsche Bank who knew the 'full picture' of the fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00010177.jpg
This document appears to be a transcript of a legal argument asserting that David Parse was fully aware that a series of complex financial transactions were being executed for tax loss purposes. The speaker argues that Parse's sales assistant, Carrie Yackee, acted explicitly on his instructions to carry out these transactions for two taxpayers, Coleman and Blair. The argument also highlights communication between Parse's office, the firm Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank, suggesting a coordinated effort.
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-00010174.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a lawyer argues against a finding of 'ineffective assistance of counsel'. The speaker contends that the defense counsel, the Brune & Richard law firm, knowingly withheld information about a juror's 'suspension opinion' before trial, engaging in a prohibited 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy'. This strategic choice, rather than negligence, should defeat the claim of ineffective counsel, according to the argument presented.
DOJ-OGR-00010173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 24, 2022) recording an argument by Ms. Davis (prosecution) against a motion for a new trial for defendant Mr. Parse. Davis argues that Parse received a 'platinum plated defense' and that his previous counsel (Brune & Richard) made a strategic decision to keep Catherine Conrad as Juror No. 1 despite knowing her identity, a choice that resulted in acquittals on some counts. The text discusses the 'Strickland standard' for ineffective assistance of counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg
This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.
DOJ-OGR-00010170.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed Aug 4, 2022) involving an oral argument by a defense attorney. The attorney argues against the government's claim that a male subject 'must have known' about backdating transactions and tax irregularities, asserting the subject was merely a junior accountant in the 1980s earning a low salary and lacked the specific training ('mens rea') to understand the 'annual accounting rule' amidst the chaotic environment of a law firm. The text focuses heavily on legal standards regarding intent and negligence in tax law.
DOJ-OGR-00010169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, argues that the government's case against his clients, Pace and Brubaker, incorrectly characterizes actions as 'backdating'. He claims that Deutsche Bank records from February and March were simply marked 'as of' and provided to tax preparers, which is different from the government's portrayal and distinguishes his clients from a government cooperator in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010168.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript (filed March 24, 2022) discussing legal arguments regarding 'ineffective assistance' of counsel and 'waivers.' The speaker cites legal precedents including 'Chappee' in the First Circuit and 'Flores' in the Second Circuit, discussing the 'Rosario material' and '3500 material' (discovery rules) in the context of New York law and federal appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00010167.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 23, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Shechtman. They discuss the constitutional effectiveness of Mr. Parse's counsel, the Brune firm, with Mr. Shechtman affirming that the defense was 'very solid' despite some potential areas for improvement. The conversation also touches on legal strategy, mentioning another lawyer, Barry Berke, and the implications of the double jeopardy clause.
DOJ-OGR-00010163.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 22, 2022. In it, an attorney argues to a judge that an opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice to "sandbag" the court, but rather a result of incompetence, described as being "careless" and "inept." The speaker references a standard from the Second Circuit and the judge's own prior findings to argue that the other counsel "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00010162.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker criticizes the past actions of an unnamed woman and her two senior colleagues. The speaker argues they failed to properly investigate or report information to the court, possibly due to exhaustion or intimidation, which the judge later termed a 'tragic misjudgment'. This failure to act ultimately led to the substitution of a juror several days later.
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker discusses the legal distinction between a deficient performance by a law firm and a deliberate strategic judgment. The speaker uses a hypothetical scenario involving the 'Brune firm' deciding to 'sandbag the Court' to argue that a conscious choice to withhold information is a strategic decision, not simply oversight or carelessness, referencing opinions from the Second Circuit and a dissent by Justice Stevens.
DOJ-OGR-00010159.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case 'United States of America v. David Parse.' It records the opening of oral arguments regarding Parse's motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense attorney Paul Shechtman and prosecutors Nanette Davis and Stanley J. Okula, Jr. are present. While part of a larger batch of documents (indicated by the DOJ-OGR Bates stamp) often associated with Epstein-related releases, the text specifically concerns the trial of David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00010158.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court transcript from a proceeding on October 12, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is United States of America v. David K. Parse, with Judge William H. Pauley III presiding. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution, led by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and the defense, represented by Paul Shechtman of Zuckerman Spaeder.
DOJ-OGR-00010122.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript index (Page 382, A-5839) listing exhibits received into evidence. It lists Government Exhibits 10 and 28, and Defendant Exhibits PMD 4 and PMD 27, alongside the page numbers where they were received (358, 312, and 245 respectively). The document was filed on March 21, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity