ROBERT GLASSMAN

The letter, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys, argues that Maxwell has a constitutional right to call Jane's attorney, Robert Glassman, as a witness to testify about his advice to Jane regarding cooperating with the government and testifying against Maxwell. The attorneys contend that the attorney-client privilege does not apply or has been waived, and that Glassman's testimony is relevant to Jane's credibility and Maxwell's defense.

The document is a letter from the US Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that the defense's motion to call Jane's attorney, Robert Glassman, to testify should be denied due to attorney-client privilege and lack of probative value under Rule 403. The government asserts that Glassman's conversations with Jane are privileged and that the defense's theories for why the privilege does not apply are without merit.

The US Attorney's office submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing that a statement in an email is not admissible and requires additional context, and therefore refuses to enter into a stipulation regarding Robert Glassman's testimony. The government had previously conferred with defense counsel on the matter. The letter is in relation to the ongoing case against Ghislaine Maxwell.

The provided document is a compilation of excerpts from two different court filings. The first is an affidavit from David Parse regarding juror misconduct during his trial, while the second is a letter from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan discussing the anticipated testimony of attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.

The US Government filed a letter opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to call victim lawyers Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman as witnesses, arguing that their testimony is irrelevant and would compromise attorney-client privilege. The Government contends that the victims themselves have already testified and been cross-examined, making the lawyers' testimony unnecessary. The court must decide whether to allow the defendant to call these lawyers as witnesses.

The letter, written by Kevin Boyle on behalf of witness Jane, argues that Jane's attorney, Robert Glassman, should not be compelled to testify about his conversations with Jane because it would violate attorney-client privilege and be irrelevant to the case. The letter also argues that the subpoena served on Glassman was procedurally improper.