Epstein Secrets

nd, in our opinion, showed I lack of understanding of sex offenders generally and I lack of knowledge of this case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client in to face I possible "perjury trap." In the middle of this period, which started in November 2006

his case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client

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

his case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client

nd, in our opinion, showed a lack of understanding of sex offenders generally and a lack of knowledge of this case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client in to face a possible "perjury trap." In the middle of this period, which started in November 2006

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

home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the defendant

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

home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the defendant

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