Brune states that Ms. Trzaskoma is a partner at their firm and that Brune was supervising her regarding the jury selection work.
Ms. Trzaskoma informed Brune about the conference call and its transcript, suggesting they are colleagues or on the same legal team.
The document states they worked together on a July 21st letter and talked on many occasions about issues related to a hearing.
Brune describes having a discussion with Ms. Trzaskoma about a Google search she conducted, indicating they were working together on the case.
Brune is aware of Ms. Trzaskoma's professional activities, specifically her handling of a telephone conference with the Court.
Brune is aware of Ms. Trzaskoma's professional activities, specifically her handling of a telephone conference with the Court.
They were in court together and had a conversation afterwards. Brune was aware of research Ms. Trzaskoma had conducted.
They appear to be colleagues. Brune is being questioned about a brief for which Ms. Trzaskoma drafted the facts.
They appear to be colleagues. Brune is being questioned about a brief for which Ms. Trzaskoma drafted the facts.
Brune is defending Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and intentions regarding a letter submitted to the court, referring to her as part of a collective 'we'.
Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court for the witness (Brune) while they were out of the country.
They are colleagues who had a discussion on July 18th about a case, during which Ms. Brune learned about the Westlaw report.
Ms. Trzaskoma informed Brune about the conference call 'immediately after that,' suggesting they are colleagues working on the same matter.
Ms. Trzaskoma is a partner at Brune's firm. Brune supervised her work on jury selection, though she was more involved in the details while he was ultimately responsible.
DOJ-OGR-00009348.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Brune is undergoing direct examination. The witness corrects a previous statement about the timeline of events, clarifying that a key telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court occurred on July 18th, not earlier in May. The witness also characterizes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being very thorough in her work.
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-00009359.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010036.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about their knowledge of statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during a July 15th conference call. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Brune read the call transcript in relation to filing a letter on July 21st, implying that Brune may have known Ms. Trzaskoma's statements were incorrect. Brune denies this assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00010027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The witness corrects a previous statement about a timeline, clarifying that Ms. Trzaskoma handled a telephone conference with the Court on May 15th, and that the witness first learned about the relevant voir dire on July 18th. The witness also describes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being a "very thorough person."
DOJ-OGR-00009340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. Brune testifies about their knowledge of research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma, stating they became aware of it on May 18th but knew on May 12th that she had found a disciplinary decision on Google. The transcript details a conversation on May 12th between Brune, Ms. Trzaskoma, and Ms. Edelstein that occurred after court near Foley Square.
DOJ-OGR-00009332.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why Brune and their team did not inform the court about information suggesting a juror was a suspended attorney. Brune explains that the information, found via a Google search by a colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was initially dismissed as pertaining to a different person and that they did not have a physical printout of the document in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009993.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated March 22, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Brune. Brune is being questioned about his law firm's process for jury selection, confirming that his partner, Ms. Trzaskoma (also called Theresa), was heavily involved in the details of gathering information on jurors, while he maintained ultimate responsibility and a supervisory role. The effort was collaborative, also involving two lawyers from San Francisco.
DOJ-OGR-00009314.jpg
This document is a court transcript excerpt from a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The testimony focuses on the roles and responsibilities for jury selection within Brune's law firm for a particular case. Brune clarifies that while they were ultimately responsible, a partner named Ms. Trzaskoma was more deeply involved in the details and supervised other lawyers in gathering information on potential jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript from February 24, 2022, where a witness, Ms. Brune, is questioned about her knowledge of a "Westlaw report" and a "Google search." Ms. Brune states she learned about the Westlaw report on July 18th during a discussion with her colleagues, Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein. The questioning reveals the report was allegedly found or provided by a Mr. Benhamou on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009357.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's knowledge regarding a July 15th conference call and a July 21st letter, specifically probing whether Brune knew that statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during the call were incorrect. Brune denies having this knowledge and explains she read the transcript to understand a directive from Judge Pauley.
DOJ-OGR-00009368.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness named Brune is under direct examination. Brune denies meeting with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein specifically to prepare for the hearing but confirms they collaborated extensively on a July 21st letter to accurately reconstruct events. The questioning focuses on the extent of their communication and preparation regarding the issues before the judge.
Entities connected to both Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship