DOJ-OGR-00009936.jpg

Casasé 2k Oreo aiites PAE name <a FRED ORS ZED 22 Pepys BG f G76 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, yv February 15, 2012 PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., C2frdaus Conrad - direct Page 173 | C2frdau5 Conrad - direct Page 175 1 A. I'msorry, Are you reading from the transcript? 1 A, Lanswered the question. 2 Q. Just asking you a question. 2 Q. Did you think it would be important for us to know that? 3 A. Oh. 3 A. No, because remission is remission. 4 Q. When you said that the only thing you thought was relevant | 4 THE WITNESS: And I don't think this is the proper 5 for us ta know was that you were willing to serve three months 5 forum to me to give a blank HIPAA authorization for the world, 6 or more, did you think there was anything else that we might be | 6 Judge. 7 interested in? | 7 Q. Let me just ask my questions and go from there. Your 8 A. Of course, The fact that I had a JD. | 8 belief was it would not have been of any relevance to us to 9 Q. The fact that the Appellate Division had found in December | 9 know that you were an alcoholic, is that right? 10 2007 that your conduct "evinces a shocking disregard forthe 10 A. However you want to characterize it. 11 judicial system,” would that have been relevant? /11 Q. Would it have been of any relevance to the Court, do you 12 A. No, because it's boilerplate in the First Department to say |12 think it would have been of importance to the Court to know 13 that. 13 that you had been suspended from the practice of law on grounds 14 MR. GAIR; Your Honor, at this point! move the (14 of disability by reason of mental or physical infirmity? 15 admission of PMD Exhibit 14, which is the December 18, 2007 |15 A. Dol think it would have been important? 16 report. |16 Q. Yes, 17 THE COURT: Any objection? 17 A. It's not the truth. It's the boilerplate First Department 18 MR. OKULA: No, your Honor. |18 renderings. 19 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 14 is received in evidence. 19 MR. GAJIR: Your Honor, f move the admission of PMD 20 (Exhibit PMD 14 received in evidence) 20 Exhibit 20, which is the Supreme Court Appellate Division's 21 Q. Whether or not you think it is boilerplate, do you think 21 order of December 9, 2010, Presiding Justice Sachs, Justices 22 that I might want to know that an appellate panel had found 22 Friedman, Sweeney, Nardelli, and McGuire. 23 that your conduct evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial 23 MR, OKULA: No objection, your Honor. 24 system? 24 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 20 is received in evidence. 25 A. If you take the boilerplate language literally. (25 (Exhibit PMD 20 received in evidence) C2irdaus Conrad - direct Page 176 C2frdaus Conrad - direct Page 174 1 Q. Do you think Judge Pauley would have wanted to know that? | 1 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I'd also like to offer PMD 17, 2 A. Of course. 2 which is the March 29, 2009, testimony of Catherine Conrad in 3 Q. But you didn't tell him that, did you? 3 the Supreme Court Appellate Division departmental disciplinary 4 A. No. 4 committee. 5 Q. Did you think that we might want to know that you had | 5 MR. OKULA: No objection, 6 suffered from a terrible disease of alcoholism for more than a 6 THE COURT: PMD Exhibit 17 is received in evidence. 7 decade? Did you think we might want to know that? | 7 (Exhibit PMD 17 received in evidence) 2a A. That's your twist on it. 8 Q. Now, you told the disciplinary committee in March of 2009 9 Q. Do you suffer from alcoholism? 9 that you were an alcoholic, correct? 10 A, One's never cured. 10 A. I'm not sure of my specific words, sir. 11 Q. Have you suffered from alcoholism for more than a decade? |11 Q. If you look at Exhibit 17, page 54, line 3, the question 12 A. I don't know. 12 was asked of you, “Have you been diagnosed by any doctor or any 13 Q. Have you been in and out of treatment programs? |13 facility as an alcoholic? 14 A. Yes, I did. 14 "A. Yes, and I have pancreatitis." 15 Q. Have you admitted under oath you're an alcoholic? |15 Was that the question and did you give that answer 16 A. I'mnot sure, 16 under oath? 17 Q. Are you an alcoholic? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 A. Probably. |18 Q. The pancreatitis in fact is related to alcoholism? 19 Q. Do you think that we would have wanted to know, thatthe 19 A. Yes. 20 Court would have wanted to know, that you had suffered from 20 Q. Did you think it would be important for the Court to know, 21 alcoholism? 21 in judging your fitness as a juror, that your first attempt to 22 A. I'm not the Court. I can't judge that. |22 be reinstated to the practice of law was rejected by the court | 23 Q. I'masking you what you think. The Court asked youa 23 after you had submitted a psychiatric evaluation? 24 question, which was, "Is there anything else you think it would |24 A. Your chronology of events doesn't make sense, first of all. 25 be important for us to know?" 25 And the answer to the question is no, Page 173 - Page 176 (44) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS \ DOJ-OGR- 00009936