DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
478 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
478 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Ms. Davis, argues that there is overwhelming evidence of defendant Mr. Parse's criminal involvement in obstructing the IRS and mail fraud via backdated transactions. She also contends that his background as a CPA is relevant to proving his intent. The transcript also references another attorney, Mr. Shechtman, and the testimony of Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein regarding their knowledge of a juror, which they allegedly tried to conceal from the court.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Conrad |
Wrote a letter to the government in May after the verdict.
|
|
| Mr. Shechtman |
An individual, likely an attorney, who is characterized as wanting to portray his clients' actions as hiding mistakes.
|
|
| Susan Brune |
Mentioned as someone who testified.
|
|
| Laurie Edelstein |
Mentioned as someone who testified.
|
|
| THE COURT | Judicial authority |
A speaker in the transcript, presiding over the case and asking questions.
|
| MS. DAVIS |
A speaker in the transcript, likely an attorney, arguing against the defendant.
|
|
| Mr. Parse | Defendant |
A defendant accused of criminal involvement, obstructing the IRS, mail fraud, and being involved in backdated transac...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| IRS | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a corrupt endeavor to obstruct it.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A hearing was held where it was acknowledged that certain information was damaging to a client.
Court
Relationships (3)
Mr. Shechtman appears to be representing Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, as he is mentioned characterizing their actions and they are mentioned as having testified.
Mr. Shechtman appears to be representing Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein, as he is mentioned characterizing their actions and they are mentioned as having testified.
Key Quotes (3)
"Would you address the prejudice prong."Source
— THE COURT
(The Court asking Ms. Davis to speak on a specific legal point.)
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
Quote #1
"Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud count."Source
— MS. DAVIS
(Ms. Davis responding to the Court and stating the strength of the evidence against the defendant, Mr. Parse.)
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
Quote #2
"We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his"Source
— MS. DAVIS
(Ms. Davis arguing that Mr. Parse's professional background is relevant to proving his criminal intent.)
DOJ-OGR-00010176.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,552 characters)
Casasit:2020-0000389AENurD@dumentt646320Fide028222PPage788fd1f17
A-5921
A-5921
19
CAC3PARC
of this after the receipt of the jury -- of Ms. Conrad's letter
to the government in May after the verdict. And worse, even in
the conference calls with the Court, they continued to make it
appear and resist the Court and the government learning that
knowledge.
Mr. Shechtman seems to want to characterize this as
them wanting to hide their mistakes. But it's quite clear, and
Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein testified, we would not have
told this Court but for the Court pressing. That to me speaks
of a decision made early on and continuing through the briefing
that they wanted the juror on the panel, but they wanted the
Court not to know exactly what they knew because they
understood, and as was acknowledged at the hearing, that that
was damaging to their client.
THE COURT: Would you address the prejudice prong.
MS. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe
that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming
evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the
corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud
count. The defense conceded in its papers that Mr. Parse was
involved in the backdated transactions. We think backdated
transactions is a perfectly adequate description of them.
We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's
background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case
law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
CAC3PARC
of this after the receipt of the jury -- of Ms. Conrad's letter
to the government in May after the verdict. And worse, even in
the conference calls with the Court, they continued to make it
appear and resist the Court and the government learning that
knowledge.
Mr. Shechtman seems to want to characterize this as
them wanting to hide their mistakes. But it's quite clear, and
Susan Brune and Laurie Edelstein testified, we would not have
told this Court but for the Court pressing. That to me speaks
of a decision made early on and continuing through the briefing
that they wanted the juror on the panel, but they wanted the
Court not to know exactly what they knew because they
understood, and as was acknowledged at the hearing, that that
was damaging to their client.
THE COURT: Would you address the prejudice prong.
MS. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, we believe
that there is more than adequate evidence, indeed overwhelming
evidence, of defendant Parse's criminal involvement in the
corrupt endeavor to obstruct the IRS and in the mail fraud
count. The defense conceded in its papers that Mr. Parse was
involved in the backdated transactions. We think backdated
transactions is a perfectly adequate description of them.
We also submit, your Honor, that Mr. Parse's
background as a CPA, even a non-practicing CPA, is under case
law relevant to his intent and circumstantial evidence of his
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010176
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document