Epstein Secrets

ll to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (171) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by J oe #16. (172) On or about September 19, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN sent a text message to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (173) On or about Septe

alto Shapiro United States, 335 U.S. 1, 19, 68 S.Ct. 6, 1385, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948) (following rule of construction of Mike). More recently, in Kastigar, the Court up- held the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 6002 on the ground that use immunity "is coextensive with the scope of the privi- lege again

certain charges pending in Alabama. Be cause it disputed the very existence of a grant of immunity, the government object- ed to the holding of a Kastigar hearing as unwarranted. Faced with this disputed claim of an un- written grant of immunity, the magistrate did not hold a traditional Kastigar hea

. In May 2006, I met with Si and PBPD Detective Joe in the 4th Floor Conference Room at the U.S. At

nusz Banasiak and Mucinska. Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, Mr. Banasiak was satisfied with I standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi

c media stored therein, and a host of external storage devices without limitation unconstitutional as authorizing general search); United States v. Joe, 2007 WL 108465 at *7 (N.D.Ca1. January 10, 2007) (holding "computers and related or similar devices, and information on hard or floppy drives, whi

521-23. Interestingly, in that case, the government conceded that "the leaking of privileged materials to investigators would raise the specter of Kastigar-like evidentiary hearings". Id. at 517. This case presents the same specter should Mr. Epstein be indicted. The recognized importance of the attorn

c media stored therein, and a host of external storage devices without limitation unconstitutional as authorizing general search); United States v. Joe, 2007 WL 108465 at *7 (N.D.Cal. January 10, 2007) (holding "computers and related or similar devices, and information on hard or floppy drives, whi

521-23. Interestingly, in that case, the government conceded that "the leaking of privileged materials to investigators would raise the specter of Kastigar-like evidentiary hearings". Id. at 517. This case presents the same specter should Mr. Epstein be indicted. The recognized importance of the attorn

Publix $308.51. Groceries $1,257.19 4 9/26/2005a $200.00 Cash $1,057.19 5 9/28/2005 Southern Petroleum $48.00 Gasoline $1,009.19 6 9/28/2005 Joe's Subs $5.82 Meal $1,003.37 7 9/28/2005 Gold Coast Dental $375.00 Janusz's dental $628.37 EFTA00187253 Petty Cash Date Amount 1 Opening b

bpoenaed solely as a witness. During our last conversation, you stated that Mr. Banasiak would be willing to speak with investigators pursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please let me know if that is the case and, if so, when you and Mr. Banasiak are available. My office would rightly question why I would as

ent ethics opinions of Judge Herbert J. Stern and Joe D. Whitley" 12/7/2007 Alan Dershwitz Herbert J

in employees — Janusz Banasiak Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, r. anasi was satisfied with a standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi