SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal deposition where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the timeline of their knowledge concerning certain facts. Edelstein clarifies that their understanding of the situation evolved, distinguishing between what was known on May 12th and what was known later when writing a legal brief. The testimony reveals that a letter received by Edelstein prompted an investigation into the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010088.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition or court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness on May 12th of an investigation conducted by a colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, regarding a 'suspended lawyer'. Edelstein admits to knowing about the suspended lawyer on that date but denies being aware of Trzaskoma's investigation itself.
DOJ-OGR-00010085.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about a brief they co-authored. The questioning focuses on whether the brief was intentionally written to mislead the reader about when Edelstein learned of Juror Catherine Conrad's suspension as a lawyer, particularly in relation to receiving a letter from the government. Edelstein admits the brief could be misread but denies any malicious intent, a claim the questioner challenges by referencing a specific decision made with a colleague, Ms. Brune.
DOJ-OGR-00010084.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00083-AJN) filed on Feb 24, 2022. Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about whether a legal brief she was involved with misleadingly suggested that her team only learned of an Appellate Division suspension report regarding Catherine Conrad (Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial) after receiving a letter or juror note. Edelstein admits the brief might convey that impression but denies any intent to mislead.
DOJ-OGR-00010082.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about his role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on discussions he had with colleagues, Susan Brune and Randy Kim, concerning whether to disclose facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th. The timing of these strategic discussions, specifically whether they occurred before the receipt of a "juror letter," is a central point of the inquiry.
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-00010080.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing testimony about the jury selection process. A witness explains why they and others decided not to further investigate a potential juror, Catherine Conrad, despite Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern that she might be a suspended lawyer. The witness states that after reviewing Conrad's voir dire responses, they concluded it was a different person and found it "inconceivable" she would lie about her education.
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-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-00010075.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, likely a deposition or testimony, involving a person named Edelstein. The questions revolve around Edelstein's involvement in the trial for the defense of David Parse, email exchanges mentioning Robert Conrad, Theresa Trzaskoma, and David Benhamou, and the receipt of a 'dossier' or a link to one, possibly related to a Catherine Conrad letter.
DOJ-OGR-00010074.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report, a Bronxville address, and the identification of Robert Conrad (an immigration judge) as the father of Catherine Conrad and 'head of household.' The witness also acknowledges seeing email traffic referencing Robert Conrad later in the process.
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-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-00010071.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned by an attorney, Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's knowledge of a Westlaw report and a series of email exchanges on May 12th involving his partner, Randy Kim, and a Theresa Trzaskoma. These emails allegedly led Trzaskoma to believe that 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, and the questioning also references a 'Jesus e-mail' and a July 15 court conference.
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-00010066.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a person named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a potential conflict of interest involving Juror No. 1. The juror shares the same name, Catherine Conrad, as a suspended New York attorney. Ms. Edelstein explains that she dismissed the possibility of them being the same person because the juror stated during voir dire that her highest level of education was a BA in English, which she believed ruled out the possibility of her also being a lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00010064.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. In the transcript, a witness named Ms. Brune is excused by the court. The government's attorney, Mr. Okula, then calls a new witness, Laura Joy Edelstein, who is sworn in and begins her direct examination with a question about a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct.
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-00010060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 320) filed on March 24, 2022. A witness named Brune is being questioned by the Court regarding their decision not to inform the government that 'Juror No. 1' might be a suspended lawyer. Brune explains they assumed the government, with its superior investigative resources and paralegals, had already 'Googled' the juror and reached their own conclusions.
DOJ-OGR-00010059.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, where a witness named Brune is questioned by a judge. The witness defends their firm's failure to disclose information by stating they assumed the information was easily discoverable via a Google search and that the government was already aware of it, particularly in relation to 'Juror No. 1'. The witness also claims ignorance of a 'Westlaw report' concerning the juror at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010058.jpg
This document is page 318 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-00438-DAO) filed on August 24, 2022. It features testimony from Ms. Brune under redirect examination by Ms. Davis, discussing legal ethics regarding whether an attorney should raise non-meritorious arguments if the government omits them. Ms. Brune asserts she would disclose facts or arguments if put in issue by the Court or government.
DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the recross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning, led by the Court and involving attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis, covers a fraud alert related to two Social Security numbers and the ethical obligations of the witness's firm. A key point of discussion is whether the firm would have voluntarily disclosed information from a July 21 letter about an investigation into Juror No. 7 without being prompted by the Court or the government.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity