Mr. Glassman
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Subject
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA Rossmiller
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Social connection |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Settlement negotiation | A series of settlement negotiations involving Jane's claim, including an offer from the EVCP and ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Lion King | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Legal advice | The witness received initial advice from Mr. Glassman before a victims' compensation fund was est... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal representation change | Jane hired a different attorney, Mr. Glassman. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed brief hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to examine Mr. Glassman about his com... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Judicial ruling | A judge rules to permit one specific question to be asked of Mr. Glassman regarding what he told ... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal ruling | A judge is ruling on the admissibility of testimony from attorneys, permitting one specific quest... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-13 | Legal motion | Ms. Maxwell's legal team requests permission from the Court to call Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and... | Court | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Filing of civil lawsuit by Jane. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-09-19 | Meeting | Jane's first meeting with the government. | N/A | View |
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Witness hired Mr. Glassman as her attorney | Unknown | View |
| 2019-09-03 | Hiring | Jane hired Mr. Glassman. | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal event | The witness, Jane, hired an attorney, Mr. Glassman. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a portion of the privilege was waived, while another, Ms. Moe, states she is unprepared to respond. The judge ultimately rules that the issue is too complex to be decided on the spot and requires the parties to submit formal legal briefs on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017764.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The discussion centers on whether Ms. Menninger can question a witness, Jane, about her potential expectation of receiving a higher financial payout in a related civil case as a result of her testimony in the current criminal proceeding. The attorneys and the court explore the relevance of this line of questioning, touching upon privileged communications and the timeline of a victims' compensation fund.
DOJ-OGR-00017753.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's civil lawsuits filed in January 2020 against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's estate with the assistance of attorney Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on the financial support she provided to her mother, who lived with her, and a conversation she had with her attorney, Mr. Glassman, about cooperating in a criminal case after hiring him in September 2019. An objection by Ms. Moe to a question about this conversation was sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on establishing that Jane hired two personal injury lawyers, Mr. Glassman and Mr. Werksman, on September 3, 2019, just two weeks before her first meeting with the government. Jane confirms she hired them based on advice from her husband's friend, rather than seeking a specialist in victims' rights.
DOJ-OGR-00017741.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on her hiring of a personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman, on September 3, 2019, executed via a contingent fee contract (Exhibit J-14). The defense attempts to ask about Glassman's advertising regarding large verdicts, but an objection regarding hearsay is sustained.
DOJ-OGR-00017740.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on events in 2019, establishing that Jane was contacted by the media and an Agent Amanda Young before Epstein's arrest. The transcript reveals Jane was initially uninterested in getting involved but later hired a new attorney, Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a discrepancy in her prior statements to the government regarding a trip to New York with Maxwell and Epstein at age 14, specifically about seeing the Broadway show 'The Lion King,' which did not premiere until she was 17. The transcript reveals communications between the government and Jane occurred through her legal representatives, including a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00008372.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal filing (Document 544) from December 13, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell assert her constitutional right to call Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman as witnesses. The page includes the contact information for her legal counsel from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00008371.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that certain communications related to a claimant named 'Jane' are not protected by attorney-client privilege. The argument is based on her representative, Mr. Glassman, sharing her statements and settlement demands with third parties, including the government, the EVCP, and Ms. Maxwell's counsel. The document details specific financial demands, such as a $25 million demand and a $5 million offer, to demonstrate that these communications were not confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00008365.jpg
This legal document, dated December 13, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the Court should permit the testimony of three witnesses—Mr. Scarola, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Glassman—to establish motive and bias of Maxwell's accusers, after the government refused to stipulate. The document details the proposed testimony of attorney Jack Scarola, including his prior representation of an accuser named 'Carolyn' in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and his communications with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00008209.jpg
This legal document, dated December 3, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to call Mr. Glassman as a witness to question him about advice he gave to a person named Jane regarding cooperation with the government. The argument posits that any attorney-client privilege was waived when Mr. Glassman disclosed this advice, and that this testimony is crucial for Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
This legal document is page 2 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 3, 2021. The author argues that the government cannot use attorney-client privilege to prevent Ms. Maxwell's team from cross-examining a witness named Jane about a statement her attorney, Mr. Glassman, made to her. The filing contends the privilege does not apply because the communication was not intended to be confidential and, in any case, was waived when it was relayed to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019141.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where the judge and attorneys discuss scheduling for the remainder of a trial. The main topic is whether to hold a charge conference on Thursday night, which depends on if the defense will rest its case before Friday. A defense attorney also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena served to an individual named Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017134.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, who is attempting to discredit an unnamed female witness or victim. Menninger argues the woman's story is full of inconsistencies, citing discrepancies in her statements to the FBI about her housing, the timeline of meeting Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, and her description of her family life. The speaker ultimately alleges that the woman is fabricating details, specifically inserting Ghislaine into her narrative under the influence of her personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman, to strengthen her case.
DOJ-OGR-00016758.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger discuss with the Court the admissibility of testimony and specific emails involving Mr. Glassman (referencing 'The Lion King') and Mr. Rossmiller. The discussion centers on a prior ruling limiting testimony from attorneys to specific statements regarding whether testifying would help the defendant's case.
DOJ-OGR-00016692.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, attorneys discuss procedural matters with the judge, including a successful request for a one-hour filing extension and an announcement that the parties have reached a stipulation regarding Mr. Glassman, which avoids the need for his live testimony. The transcript concludes as the court prepares to bring in a witness and the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.
DOJ-OGR-00016487.jpg
This legal document is a judicial ruling from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge permits the defense to ask a witness, Mr. Glassman, a single, specific question about whether he told the government that he had informed another witness, Jane, that her testimony would benefit her civil case against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's estate. The judge deems this question relevant for potential impeachment, as it could suggest a motive for Jane's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013864.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. The judge provides guidance on witness testimony, confirms the preclusion of testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards, and addresses a government objection to admitting a 1996 sale agreement for a London property as evidence. The discussion involves several attorneys, including Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00013863.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a judicial ruling on the admissibility of certain testimony. The judge concludes that most information sought by the defense from three attorneys is irrelevant or prejudicial, but makes one exception. The judge will permit Mr. Glassman to be asked if he told the government that he had advised a witness, 'Jane', that testifying against Ms. Maxwell would help her civil claim against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's estate, as this is relevant to the witness's potential bias.
DOJ-OGR-00013559.jpg
A transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses a potential stipulation regarding testimony from Mr. Glassman about advice he gave to 'Jane' concerning cooperation with the government, aiming to avoid attorney-client privilege issues. The court also addresses administrative matters regarding letters submitted the previous night.
DOJ-OGR-00013558.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The judge and attorneys for the government and defense discuss the scheduling of future trial events, such as the charge conference and closing arguments, which depends on when the defense will rest its case. A defense attorney, Ms. Comey, also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena issued to a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00014513.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The attorney attacks the credibility of a witness (likely 'Jane' or Carolyn) by highlighting inconsistencies in her statements to the FBI regarding her housing (Bear Lake Estates), her age when moving to Interlochen, and the timeline of meeting Donald Trump in a green car owned by Epstein. The defense argues the witness fabricated Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement at the suggestion of her personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman.
Relaying his statement to Jane
Mr. Glassman relayed his statement (that cooperating would help Jane's case) to the government, which is argued to have waived any attorney-client privilege.
Case Strategy
Allegation that Glassman promised it would help her case to include Ghislaine.
Cooperation/Testimony
Statement that cooperation or testimony would help her case.
Disclosure of conversation with Jane
Glassman telling the government what he told Jane.
The Lion King
Email discussed regarding its admissibility or status as a stipulation.
Cooperating with the government
Mr. Glassman advised Jane on whether cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell would 'help her case.' This advice was later revealed by Mr. Glassman in his communications with the government.
Jane's statement
Mr. Glassman shared Jane's statement with the government, which is argued to have waived any privilege.
Seeking more money for Jane's claim
Mr. Glassman went back to the EVCP on Jane's behalf to seek more money after their $5 million offer.
$25 million demand for Jane
Mr. Glassman demanded $25 million for Jane from Ms. Maxwell.
Response to settlement offer
Mr. Glassman replied to the EVCP's $5 million offer, stating Jane's claim was worth much more.
Settlement demands
Mr. Glassman communicated settlement demands to Ms. Maxwell's counsel and the EVCP.
No Subject
An email from the government to Mr. Glassman is mentioned in a question, but the question is objected to and sustained.
Information for the government
Jane communicated information to Mr. Glassman with the knowledge that he intended to share it with the government.
Statement made by Mr. Glassman to Jane regarding her test...
The document discusses a question about whether Mr. Glassman told the government that he had previously told Jane that cooperating and testifying would help her civil case against Epstein's estate and Ms. Maxwell.
Potential impact of testimony on a civil case.
The document centers on whether Mr. Glassman told Jane that testifying in the current case would help her civil case against Epstein's estate and Ms. Maxwell.
Cooperation and testimony
Mr. Glassman stated to Jane that cooperating and testifying would 'help her case'.
Relaying his statement to Jane
Mr. Glassman relayed his statement (that cooperating would help Jane's case) to the government, which is argued to have waived any attorney-client privilege.
Cooperation and testimony
Mr. Glassman stated to Jane that cooperating and testifying would 'help her case'.
Cooperation in a criminal case
The witness is questioned about Mr. Glassman talking to her about her decision to cooperate in a criminal case after she hired him.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity