Epstein Secrets

F lb UK AP :1111I I www.blackfords.com Ct. Ito si(y)0 COVID-19 — Please see our websiteherefor

A7- 327) to the limitations and protections on use when their compulsory powers are used in MLAT requests, an approach which reflects such cases as Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) as well as decisions in UK domestic law. We reiterate the protection at Article 7 (2) of the MLAT treaty altho

then later offering Epstein the option of not having to provide the attorney-representative for the victims; (15) refusing to allow the agents and Ito notify the victims about the terms of the NPA and about the change of plea; (16) allowing Epstein to continue to enjoy the benefits of the NPA even

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

Odbff Mp ' 4 Sat unges.lokett. I? an* inefole Ito, II WS slam s) Wageand7a4 Fern IRI mAL State

ates seeks her testimony solely as a witness. During our last conversation regarding indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If ib not amenable to an informal meeting, shetnust still appear purs

3.401-5007 Dear Jim; 500 South Attain/too Ave, &Ito 400 act Pa& :Beach, FL 334W (50)1120-871 Amnio

ee Ex. A. I had several oral and written communications with Mr. Eisenberg asking him if Jane Doe 2 would appear under the protection of a standard Kastigar letter, but he told me that Jane Doe 2 would only appear if statutory immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 was received. For example, in my letter

. Under this Poli- cy, the Government agrees "not Ito) charge) a firm criminally for the activity bei

itness' invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that the scope of the immu- nity granted must be as broad as the privi- lege. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1859. Due to the cumbersome requirements of obtaining properly authorized statutory im- munity, U.S. Attorneys often

d Alit° Didn't you say that/ h. Ilea to ay tages1•494 or reoelleetion. t have never said astride; Ilia that. O. That would have bum a eemplote Ito, wouldn't it have Wesel F,,. In= — — 1656 NM Oath Me had, sae - West Palm OsC3JUH11--.- tOnsor & Associates Pagel 74 Corneal. I do at know h

imony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. =, you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her

, Suite 400 Tel: 33401-623.5 Fax To a used la Ito. of "OI10 FORM 0RD-227 JAN.66 EFTA00179038 J

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