Document A-5653

Case 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616/1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 35 of 67 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., February 15, 2012 C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 173 ... C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 176 ... Page 173 - Page 176 (44) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS --- PAGE BREAK --- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., February 15, 2012 C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 173 1 A. I'm sorry. Are you reading from the transcript? 2 Q. Just asking you a question. 3 A. Oh. 4 Q. When you said that the only thing you thought was relevant 5 for us to know was that you were willing to serve three months 6 or more, did you think there was anything else that we might be 7 interested in? 8 A. Of course. The fact that I had a JD. 9 Q. The fact that the Appellate Division had found in December 10 2007 that your conduct "evinces a shocking disregard for the 11 judicial system," would that have been relevant? 12 A. No, because it's boilerplate in the First Department to say 13 that. 14 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, at this point I move the 15 admission of PMD Exhibit 14, which is the December 18, 2007 16 report. 17 THE COURT: Any objection? 18 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 14 is received in evidence. 20 (Exhibit PMD 14 received in evidence) 21 Q. Whether or not you think it is boilerplate, do you think 22 that I might want to know that an appellate panel had found 23 that your conduct evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial 24 system? 25 A. If you take the boilerplate language literally. C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 175 1 A. I answered the question. 2 Q. Did you think it would be important for us to know that? 3 A. No, because remission is remission. 4 THE WITNESS: And I don't think this is the proper 5 forum for me to give a blank HIPAA authorization for the world, 6 Judge. 7 Q. Let me just ask my questions and go from there. Your 8 belief was it would not have been of any relevance to us to 9 know that you were an alcoholic, is that right? 10 A. However you want to characterize it. 11 Q. Would it have been of any relevance to the Court, do you 12 think it would have been of importance to the Court to know 13 that you had been suspended from the practice of law on grounds 14 of disability by reason of mental or physical infirmity? 15 A. Do I think it would have been important? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. It's not the truth. It's the boilerplate First Department 18 renderings. 19 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I move the admission of PMD 20 Exhibit 20, which is the Supreme Court Appellate Division's 21 order of December 9, 2010, Presiding Justice Sachs, Justices 22 Friedman, Sweeney, Nardelli, and McGuire. 23 MR. OKULA: No objection, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 20 is received in evidence. 25 (Exhibit PMD 20 received in evidence) C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 174 1 Q. Do you think Judge Pauley would have wanted to know that? 2 A. Of course. 3 Q. But you didn't tell him that, did you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did you think that we might want to know that you had 6 suffered from a terrible disease of alcoholism for more than a 7 decade? Did you think we might want to know that? 8 A. That's your twist on it. 9 Q. Do you suffer from alcoholism? 10 A. One's never cured. 11 Q. Have you suffered from alcoholism for more than a decade? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Have you been in and out of treatment programs? 14 A. Yes, I did. 15 Q. Have you admitted under oath you're an alcoholic? 16 A. I'm not sure. 17 Q. Are you an alcoholic? 18 A. Probably. 19 Q. Do you think that we would have wanted to know, that the 20 Court would have wanted to know, that you had suffered from 21 alcoholism? 22 A. I'm not the Court. I can't judge that. 23 Q. I'm asking you what you think. The Court asked you a 24 question, which was, "Is there anything else you think it would 25 be important for us to know?" C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 176 1 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I'd also like to offer PMD 17, 2 which is the March 29, 2009, testimony of Catherine Conrad in 3 the Supreme Court Appellate Division departmental disciplinary 4 committee. 5 MR. OKULA: No objection. 6 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 17 is received in evidence. 7 (Exhibit PMD 17 received in evidence) 8 Q. Now, you told the disciplinary committee in March of 2009 9 that you were an alcoholic, correct? 10 A. I'm not sure of my specific words, sir. 11 Q. If you look at Exhibit 17, page 54, line 3, the question 12 was asked of you, "Have you been diagnosed by any doctor or any 13 facility as an alcoholic?" 14 "A. Yes, and I have pancreatitis." 15 Was that the question and did you give that answer 16 under oath? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. The pancreatitis in fact is related to alcoholism? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you think it would be important for the Court to know, 21 in judging your fitness as a juror, that your first attempt to 22 be reinstated to the practice of law was rejected by the court 23 after you had submitted a psychiatric evaluation? 24 A. Your chronology of events doesn't make sense, first of all. 25 And the answer to the question is no. Page 173 - Page 176 (44) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS