SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009987.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune confirms having worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, leaving in November 1997 to start the law firm 'Brune & Richard' with Hillary Richard on February 2, 1998. Brune also clarifies that their partner, Hillary Richard, is primarily a civil lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009986.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 246), filed as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) on August 24, 2022. It depicts the swearing-in and initial direct examination of witness Susan Elizabeth Brune by Ms. Davis on behalf of the Government. Brune establishes her credentials, noting she graduated from Harvard Law in 1988, has been practicing for nearly 25 years (placing the actual testimony date circa 2013), and is a former Assistant United States Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00009985.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing in the case of United States of America v. Paul Daugerdas. The prosecution and defense agree to a stipulation to enter a witness report (PMD Exhibit 4) and police records (PMD 27) into evidence, avoiding the need for the witness to testify. Following the admission of this evidence, the defense rests its case, and the government proceeds by calling its next witness, Susan Brune.
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-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-00009797.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a voir dire proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. A judge questions a potential juror about their personal habits, media consumption, and past affiliations to determine their fitness for jury duty. The juror affirms they can be fair and impartial, and the two counsel present, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim, decline to ask any questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009795.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) recording the voir dire process. The Court is questioning Juror No. 50, a 35-year-old Manhattan resident who works as an executive assistant in finance and has held that role since graduating college in 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00009794.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a jury selection process (voir dire) filed on March 24, 2022. The court questions a potential juror to assess their impartiality, covering potential biases towards law enforcement, criminal defense lawyers, the justice system, and wealthy individuals. The juror consistently affirms their ability to be fair and impartial, stating they have no biases that would interfere with their duties.
DOJ-OGR-00009793.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge questioning a potential juror for a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The juror states their only prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell came from a CNN news report about Jeffrey Epstein's death, which mentioned he had a girlfriend. The juror affirms their ability to disregard this prior information and judge the case solely on the evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009505.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Page 27 of the specific session, Page 86 of the filing) filed on February 24, 2022. It marks the conclusion of a hearing where The Court thanks counsel (Ms. Davis) for arguments on a motion and states that the decision is reserved. The text mentions reliance on statements made by Catherine Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, involving an individual named Mr. Parse accused of defrauding the government. An attorney, identified as CAC3PARC, argues before a judge about the nature of a mistake made in the case and, more significantly, about the interpretation of a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad. The attorney contends that under Rule 606(b) and precedent from a Third Circuit case, the note cannot be used to infer prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, before a judge. Shechtman refutes the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a "partisan" juror, arguing instead that the resulting split verdict was due to this juror's inability to persuade others to convict, not because her presence was advantageous to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg
This document is page 82 of a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as an exhibit (A-5925) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The text captures a legal argument by Ms. Davis referencing the 'Parse' case (likely United States v. Parse) and a letter from juror Catherine Conrad. The argument focuses on the legal distinction between 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' in the context of tax evasion and conspiracy counts, and how the jury's split verdict demonstrates a lack of prejudice and a deliberate decision-making process. This appears to be a citation of precedent used during post-trial motions in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009500.jpg
This document is page 81 of Exhibit A-5924, filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). However, the text of the transcript appears to be from a separate legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving David Parse, Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank) being used as a legal precedent or argument within the Maxwell trial. Ms. Davis argues to the Court that evidence shows 'Mr. Parse' had knowing criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS, distinguishing his actions from a simple mistake.
DOJ-OGR-00009499.jpg
This document appears to be a transcript of a legal argument asserting that a jury had sufficient evidence to infer an individual's knowledge of a scheme to defraud the IRS. The argument cites testimony from multiple individuals, including Sandra Burnside and Carrie Yackee, describing an 'avalanche of work' in December to finalize tax shelter transactions, implicating Mr. Parse and Ms. Yackee at Deutsche Bank. The speaker refutes a suggestion from Mr. Shechtman's brief that Deutsche Bank's approval of the transactions meant that only a few people knew the full extent of the scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00009498.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5922 within Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell case) containing a legal argument. The text discusses a tax fraud case involving David Parse, Carrie Yackee, Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank, focusing on whether Parse knew transactions were made solely for tax losses rather than investment purposes. This appears to be a citation of case law (likely U.S. v. Daugerdas) used as a precedent within the broader filing, rather than a direct record of Epstein's activities.
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-00009496.jpg
This document is a legal transcript where a speaker argues that the law firm Brune & Richard made a deliberate, strategic choice not to inform the court about a potential issue with a juror. The speaker contends that on May 12, after an investigation concerning Theresa Trzskoma, the lawyers, including Susan Brune, consciously decided against taking action, which the speaker believes cannot form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for their client, Mr. Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney argues that the opposing defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The attorney claims the defense knew about a potentially disqualifying issue concerning the 'Brune & Richard law firm' before jury selection but deliberately withheld this information from the court. This action is characterized as an impermissible 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose' strategy, which the speaker contends is sufficient grounds to defeat a finding of ineffective counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
This document is page 15 (marked A-5917) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues that there was no proof the defendant knew specific transactions were wrong and claims a 'government partisan' juror was biased against the defendant, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in *Strickland* regarding harmless error. The Judge then invites prosecutor Ms. Davis to respond.
DOJ-OGR-00009492.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which an unnamed speaker recounts a mistaken stock transaction from December 28th of 'year one'. The speaker's broker accidentally sent 10,000 Philip Morris shares to a charity and 10,000 IBM shares to the speaker's daughter, the reverse of the instructions. The error was discovered on January 2nd when the charity rejected the tobacco stock, and the broker subsequently corrected the transaction, backdating it to the original date.
DOJ-OGR-00009491.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a defense attorney's argument. The speaker challenges the government's assertion that an individual 'must have known' about illegal backdated financial transactions simply because he had worked as a junior accountant in the 1980s. The attorney argues this claim of 'mens rea' (guilty knowledge) is not supported by evidence and is not a strong argument according to Second Circuit precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg
This document is page 71 of 117 from a court filing (Exhibit A-5914) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on Feb 24, 2022. The content is a transcript from a different legal proceeding (likely a tax fraud case involving Deutsche Bank) where attorney Mr. Shechtman argues about 'ineffective assistance' and 'prejudice,' comparing the situations of a Mr. Parse and Mr. Brubaker. The text discusses bank records, backdating allegations, and the cross-examination of a government cooperator by the Kramer Levin firm.
DOJ-OGR-00009487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. An attorney is arguing before the judge regarding the conduct of the 'Brune firm,' suggesting they 'dropped the ball' regarding a revelation about someone with the 'same name' rather than engaging in a deliberate strategy. The speaker notes that this error might result in a 'very long trial' having to be done again, implying a discussion about a mistrial or retrial motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009486.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge ('THE COURT') and a lawyer ('MR. SHECHTMAN') about the government's failure to disclose information in a timely manner and making misleading statements in a memorandum. Mr. Shechtman concedes the point and states his intention to submit the documents in question for the judge's private 'in camera' review, viewing it as an inevitable step to resolve the issue of privilege.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity