Glassman
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
EVCP
|
Adversarial negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Negotiation | Glassman negotiated with the EVCP, demanding a higher settlement. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference between the Court, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Sternheim. The discussion centers on the legal procedure for 'piercing the privilege' regarding lawyer witnesses under subpoena. Specifically, the parties are discussing the prosecution's intent to call a witness named Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00008381.jpg
This legal document presents an argument to the Court to preclude the testimony of Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman. The core argument is that Glassman's settlement negotiations with an entity called EVCP cannot be used to impeach a witness named Jane, because she testified she was unaware of these negotiations. Allowing this testimony would be improper impeachment and more prejudicial than probative.
DOJ-OGR-00008244.jpg
This is the final page of a legal document (Document 528) filed on December 6, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. The United States Attorney, Damian Williams, and his assistants conclude their argument by requesting the Court to preclude testimony from "Jane's counsel." They argue that allowing such testimony would compel a witness named Glassman to provide extensive context beyond existing notes, thereby exceeding the scope of any privilege waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00008243.jpg
This page from a legal filing (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against admitting a statement made by attorney Glassman to the Government on August 17, 2021, regarding his client 'Jane'. The Government contends the statement has minimal impeachment value because Jane's civil cases were already dismissed and she had been paid by the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund prior to the statement. Additionally, the Government argues that admitting the statement risks violating attorney-client privilege regarding Glassman's advice to Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated December 6, 2021. It argues against the defense's claim that a witness named Jane waived her attorney-client privilege regarding advice received from her lawyer, Glassman, about cooperating with the government. The text asserts that Jane did not authorize a waiver, did not testify about privileged communications, and that any statements made by Glassman to the government do not constitute a subject matter waiver for Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) argues that attorney-client privilege protects communications between a witness named 'Jane' and her attorney 'Glassman.' It asserts that Glassman could not waive this privilege as it belongs to Jane, and distinguishes the situation from the 'Bergonzi' case precedent regarding documents prepared for the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 6, 2021. It details a judicial rejection of defense arguments that a witness named 'Jane' waived attorney-client privilege by cooperating with the government. The court rules that essential information regarding credibility does not automatically void privilege, citing Rule 403 and previous transcripts.
DOJ-OGR-00019451.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order or legal filing (Case 1:20-cv-00484) dated September 24, 2020. It discusses the motion to stay civil proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell due to the parallel criminal indictment. The text highlights the substantial overlap between the civil and criminal allegations, specifically noting accusations of grooming victims and facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse.
response about the lion king
An email from Glassman to a prosecutor containing a quote about 'the lion king', which the document argues is irrelevant.
Jane's recollection of seeing The Lion King
Glassman had an exchange with the Government regarding Jane's memory of seeing The Lion King on Broadway.
Seeking a larger award
Glassman communicated with the EVCP to seek a larger award from the Program.
Civil Case Resolution
Advised Jane that civil cases were fully resolved.
Cooperation
Advice regarding assisting the Government.
Jane's Case
Statement regarding 'help[ing] her case'.
Plaintiff Opposition
Does not contest substantial overlap between cases.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity