DOJ-OGR-00010085.pdf

C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 345 1 Catherine Conrad, Juror No. 1, was the suspended lawyer. It 2 took us two weeks to feel sure enough to even start writing the 3 brief that they were the same person. That's why the brief 4 goes through in excruciating detail the overlapping addresses, 5 the phone numbers, the data. I can see now in hindsight in 6 reading it that perhaps that is the impression that was 7 conveyed. 8 Q. And again you could see -- 9 A. But it was not the intent. 10 Q. You can see the impression or one reading of the impression 11 that's created is a false one, would you agree with me? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Well, the impression that's created in the brief is that 14 you learned of the suspension only after you received the 15 letter from the government, correct? 16 A. I think the brief can also be read in a different way. I 17 mean, if you start with the premise -- 18 Q. I'm sorry, it was a simple question. It was a simple 19 question. Doesn't the brief convey the notion that you learned 20 of the suspension report after you received the letter from the 21 government, yes or no? 22 A. I can see now that it may be read that way, but that was 23 not the intent. 24 Q. Well, it was the intent because you and Ms. Brune had 25 specifically decided that you weren't going to include what you (212) 805-0300 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.