mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009936.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "173-176",
    "document_number": "A-5653",
    "date": "February 15, 2012",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,\nFebruary 15, 2012\nC2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 173\n1 A. I'm sorry. Are you reading from the transcript?\n2 Q. Just asking you a question.\n3 A. Oh.\n4 Q. When you said that the only thing you thought was relevant\n5 for us to know was that you were willing to serve three months\n6 or more, did you think there was anything else that we might be\n7 interested in?\n8 A. Of course. The fact that I had a JD.\n9 Q. The fact that the Appellate Division had found in December\n10 2007 that your conduct \"evinces a shocking disregard for the\n11 judicial system,\" would that have been relevant?\n12 A. No, because it's boilerplate in the First Department to say\n13 that.\n14 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, at this point I move the\n15 admission of PMD Exhibit 14, which is the December 18, 2007\n16 report.\n17 THE COURT: Any objection?\n18 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor.\n19 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 14 is received in evidence.\n20 (Exhibit PMD 14 received in evidence)\n21 Q. Whether or not you think it is boilerplate, do you think\n22 that I might want to know that an appellate panel had found\n23 that your conduct evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial\n24 system?\n25 A. If you take the boilerplate language literally.\nC2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 175\n1 A. I answered the question.\n2 Q. Did you think it would be important for us to know that?\n3 A. No, because remission is remission.\n4 THE WITNESS: And I don't think this is the proper\n5 forum for me to give a blank HIPAA authorization for the world,\n6 Judge.\n7 Q. Let me just ask my questions and go from there. Your\n8 belief was it would not have been of any relevance to us to\n9 know that you were an alcoholic, is that right?\n10 A. However you want to characterize it.\n11 Q. Would it have been of any relevance to the Court, do you\n12 think it would have been of importance to the Court to know\n13 that you had been suspended from the practice of law on grounds\n14 of disability by reason of mental or physical infirmity?\n15 A. Do I think it would have been important?\n16 Q. Yes.\n17 A. It's not the truth. It's the boilerplate First Department\n18 renderings.\n19 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I move the admission of PMD\n20 Exhibit 20, which is the Supreme Court Appellate Division's\n21 order of December 9, 2010, Presiding Justice Sachs, Justices\n22 Friedman, Sweeney, Nardelli, and McGuire.\n23 MR. OKULA: No objection, your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 20 is received in evidence.\n25 (Exhibit PMD 20 received in evidence)\nC2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 174\n1 Q. Do you think Judge Pauley would have wanted to know that?\n2 A. Of course.\n3 Q. But you didn't tell him that, did you?\n4 A. No.\n5 Q. Did you think that we might want to know that you had\n6 suffered from a terrible disease of alcoholism for more than a\n7 decade? Did you think we might want to know that?\n8 A. That's your twist on it.\n9 Q. Do you suffer from alcoholism?\n10 A. One's never cured.\n11 Q. Have you suffered from alcoholism for more than a decade?\n12 A. I don't know.\n13 Q. Have you been in and out of treatment programs?\n14 A. Yes, I did.\n15 Q. Have you admitted under oath you're an alcoholic?\n16 A. I'm not sure.\n17 Q. Are you an alcoholic?\n18 A. Probably.\n19 Q. Do you think that we would have wanted to know, that the\n20 Court would have wanted to know, that you had suffered from\n21 alcoholism?\n22 A. I'm not the Court. I can't judge that.\n23 Q. I'm asking you what you think. The Court asked you a\n24 question, which was, \"Is there anything else you think it would\n25 be important for us to know?\"\nC2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 176\n1 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I'd also like to offer PMD 17,\n2 which is the March 29, 2009, testimony of Catherine Conrad in\n3 the Supreme Court Appellate Division departmental disciplinary\n4 committee.\n5 MR. OKULA: No objection.\n6 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 17 is received in evidence.\n7 (Exhibit PMD 17 received in evidence)\n8 Q. Now, you told the disciplinary committee in March of 2009\n9 that you were an alcoholic, correct?\n10 A. I'm not sure of my specific words, sir.\n11 Q. If you look at Exhibit 17, page 54, line 3, the question\n12 was asked of you, \"Have you been diagnosed by any doctor or any\n13 facility as an alcoholic?\"\n14 \"A. Yes, and I have pancreatitis.\"\n15 Was that the question and did you give that answer\n16 under oath?\n17 A. Yes, sir.\n18 Q. The pancreatitis in fact is related to alcoholism?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. Did you think it would be important for the Court to know,\n21 in judging your fitness as a juror, that your first attempt to\n22 be reinstated to the practice of law was rejected by the court\n23 after you had submitted a psychiatric evaluation?\n24 A. Your chronology of events doesn't make sense, first of all.\n25 And the answer to the question is no.\nPage 173 - Page 176 (44)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "February 15, 2012",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 173",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. I'm sorry. Are you reading from the transcript?\n2 Q. Just asking you a question.\n3 A. Oh.\n4 Q. When you said that the only thing you thought was relevant\n5 for us to know was that you were willing to serve three months\n6 or more, did you think there was anything else that we might be\n7 interested in?\n8 A. Of course. The fact that I had a JD.\n9 Q. The fact that the Appellate Division had found in December\n10 2007 that your conduct \"evinces a shocking disregard for the\n11 judicial system,\" would that have been relevant?\n12 A. No, because it's boilerplate in the First Department to say\n13 that.\n14 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, at this point I move the\n15 admission of PMD Exhibit 14, which is the December 18, 2007\n16 report.\n17 THE COURT: Any objection?\n18 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor.\n19 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 14 is received in evidence.\n20 (Exhibit PMD 14 received in evidence)\n21 Q. Whether or not you think it is boilerplate, do you think\n22 that I might want to know that an appellate panel had found\n23 that your conduct evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial\n24 system?\n25 A. If you take the boilerplate language literally.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 175",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. I answered the question.\n2 Q. Did you think it would be important for us to know that?\n3 A. No, because remission is remission.\n4 THE WITNESS: And I don't think this is the proper\n5 forum for me to give a blank HIPAA authorization for the world,\n6 Judge.\n7 Q. Let me just ask my questions and go from there. Your\n8 belief was it would not have been of any relevance to us to\n9 know that you were an alcoholic, is that right?\n10 A. However you want to characterize it.\n11 Q. Would it have been of any relevance to the Court, do you\n12 think it would have been of importance to the Court to know\n13 that you had been suspended from the practice of law on grounds\n14 of disability by reason of mental or physical infirmity?\n15 A. Do I think it would have been important?\n16 Q. Yes.\n17 A. It's not the truth. It's the boilerplate First Department\n18 renderings.\n19 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I move the admission of PMD\n20 Exhibit 20, which is the Supreme Court Appellate Division's\n21 order of December 9, 2010, Presiding Justice Sachs, Justices\n22 Friedman, Sweeney, Nardelli, and McGuire.\n23 MR. OKULA: No objection, your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 20 is received in evidence.\n25 (Exhibit PMD 20 received in evidence)",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 174",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Q. Do you think Judge Pauley would have wanted to know that?\n2 A. Of course.\n3 Q. But you didn't tell him that, did you?\n4 A. No.\n5 Q. Did you think that we might want to know that you had\n6 suffered from a terrible disease of alcoholism for more than a\n7 decade? Did you think we might want to know that?\n8 A. That's your twist on it.\n9 Q. Do you suffer from alcoholism?\n10 A. One's never cured.\n11 Q. Have you suffered from alcoholism for more than a decade?\n12 A. I don't know.\n13 Q. Have you been in and out of treatment programs?\n14 A. Yes, I did.\n15 Q. Have you admitted under oath you're an alcoholic?\n16 A. I'm not sure.\n17 Q. Are you an alcoholic?\n18 A. Probably.\n19 Q. Do you think that we would have wanted to know, that the\n20 Court would have wanted to know, that you had suffered from\n21 alcoholism?\n22 A. I'm not the Court. I can't judge that.\n23 Q. I'm asking you what you think. The Court asked you a\n24 question, which was, \"Is there anything else you think it would\n25 be important for us to know?\"",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 176",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I'd also like to offer PMD 17,\n2 which is the March 29, 2009, testimony of Catherine Conrad in\n3 the Supreme Court Appellate Division departmental disciplinary\n4 committee.\n5 MR. OKULA: No objection.\n6 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 17 is received in evidence.\n7 (Exhibit PMD 17 received in evidence)\n8 Q. Now, you told the disciplinary committee in March of 2009\n9 that you were an alcoholic, correct?\n10 A. I'm not sure of my specific words, sir.\n11 Q. If you look at Exhibit 17, page 54, line 3, the question\n12 was asked of you, \"Have you been diagnosed by any doctor or any\n13 facility as an alcoholic?\"\n14 \"A. Yes, and I have pancreatitis.\"\n15 Was that the question and did you give that answer\n16 under oath?\n17 A. Yes, sir.\n18 Q. The pancreatitis in fact is related to alcoholism?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. Did you think it would be important for the Court to know,\n21 in judging your fitness as a juror, that your first attempt to\n22 be reinstated to the practice of law was rejected by the court\n23 after you had submitted a psychiatric evaluation?\n24 A. Your chronology of events doesn't make sense, first of all.\n25 And the answer to the question is no.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 173 - Page 176 (44)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "PAUL M. DAUGERDAS",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Judge Pauley",
      "Justice Sachs",
      "Justices Friedman",
      "Sweeney",
      "Nardelli",
      "McGuire"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA",
      "Supreme Court Appellate Division"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 15, 2012",
      "December 18, 2007",
      "December 9, 2010",
      "March 29, 2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5653",
      "PMD Exhibit 14",
      "PMD Exhibit 20",
      "PMD Exhibit 17",
      "PMD 17"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court transcript from the United States of America vs. Paul M. Daugerdas et al. The transcript spans pages 173-176 and includes testimony from Catherine Conrad. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}