The document states they had a conversation and made a joint decision about what to omit from a legal brief.
They discussed a sensitive legal matter (a juror's status) and made a joint decision on how to proceed.
They are colleagues at the same firm and had a discussion about what to include in a legal brief.
The document states they had a conversation and jointly made a decision about the content of a legal brief they were working on.
They are described as being at the same firm and had discussions about the content of a legal brief.
They were walking together with Theresa Trzaskoma while a legal matter was being discussed.
The document explicitly states that Susan Brune is Ms. Edelstein's 'partner'.
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-00009412.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony from February 24, 2022, where an individual named Edelstein is questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune to omit information from a legal brief. Edelstein admits to discussing with Brune what to exclude regarding a 'juror note' and expresses regret, stating that in hindsight, they should have included a footnote about a suspended lawyer and apologizes for any misimpression the brief created.
DOJ-OGR-00009403.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about their role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein discussed with colleagues, specifically Susan Brune, the inclusion of certain facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on or about May 12th. Edelstein confirms having such a discussion about what to include in the brief prior to the receipt of a 'juror letter'.
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-00009384.jpg
This document is a legal transcript of testimony given by Ms. Edelstein. She is questioned about whether her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her on May 12 about potential misconduct by Juror No. 1. Ms. Edelstein denies being told that Trzaskoma believed the juror was a suspended New York attorney and claims she cannot recall the specifics of their conversation.
DOJ-OGR-00010091.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript where a witness, Edelstein, is being questioned about a decision made with Susan Brune to omit information from a legal brief. Edelstein admits they decided not to include information about a juror note and a suspended lawyer. He expresses regret over this decision, stating that in hindsight they should have included a footnote to avoid creating a misimpression.
DOJ-OGR-00010094.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.
Entities connected to both Edelstein and Susan Brune
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship