Epstein Secrets

ch evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the debriefing. This provision is necessary to avoid the necessity for a Kastigar hearing. Furthermore, under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the debriefing will be offered in evidence against your

States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL James Eisenberg, Esq. West Palm Beach Florida 33401-5007 Re: Dear Mr. Eisenberg: Facsimile: September 14, 2006 I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the debriefing with your client, ("your client"), to occur September

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL James Eisenberg, Esq. West Palm Beach Florida 33401-5007 Re: Dear Mr. Eisenberg: Facsimile: September 14, 2006 I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the

ch evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the debriefing. This provision is necessary to avoid the necessity for a Kastigar hearing. Furthermore, under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the debriefing will be offered in evidence against your

est Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: September DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL James Eisenber , Es . West Palm Beach Florida 33401-5007 Re Dear Mr. Eisenberg! I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the debriefing with your client "your client"), to occur September 2006. Please be advised that if y

below. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have received this letter from my attorney, James Eisenberg, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my understanding and agreement with the

et seq. 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 2 EFTA00235272 only appear if 6001 immunity was received. For example, in my letter of January 24,

ents in September, 2006. Within a few days, I was contacted by attorney James Eisenberg, who informed me that he was representing Jane Doe 2. Mr. Eisenberg also informed me that Jane Doe 2 would not appear before the grand jury or at a consensual interview unless the U.S. Attorney's Office obtained cou

xs. 3 & 4). 5. A subpoena was issued to Jane Doe 2 for testimony and documents in September, 2006. Within a few days, I was contacted by attorney James Eisenberg, who informed me that he was representing Jane Doe 2. Mr. Eisenberg also informed me that Jane Doe 2 would not appear before the grand jury or at

investigation, and Ms. likely testimony. Exhibit 1 at P-003732 thru P-003733. 7. On February 5, 2007, I provided Mr. Eisenberg with two proposed Kastigar letters that, again, discuss the grand jury's investigation. Exhibit 1 at P-003739 thru P-003743, P-003745. 8. In response to a complaint from Mr.

timony solely as a victim/winless. 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

rvice of the subpoena, Ms.= retained the services of James Eisenberg, Esq. to represent her. Jeffrey Epstein paid for that representation. 3. Mr. Eisenberg communicated to me orally and in writing that Ms. would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege if she were forced to appear before the grand jury, an

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

her in touch with his attorney, Jack Goldberger; and Goldberger had his friend, Jim Eisenberg, serve as Individual #28's lawyer while Epstein paid Eisenberg's fees. Individual #28 later told Brad Edwards that someone (Epstein, Goldberger, or Eisenberg) told her that "the government" planned to take away

ividuals. They are, however, similarly situated, so I have joined both requests for immunity in this memorandum. -1- EFTA00190247 proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before the grand jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. Both witnesses are represented by counsel. Miller is an openly hostile

n to any law enforcement officer about what happened between her and Epstein. Miller is represented by Jim Eisenberg, who is being paid by Epstein. Eisenberg has admitted to speaking regularly with Roy Black, who is Epstein's "behind the scenes" attorney, but Eisenberg insists that he is exercising indepe

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

that he 3 EFTA00799608 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 5 of 176 was representing Jane Doe 2. Mr. Eisenberg also informed me that Jane Doe 2 would not provide testimony or appear for a consensual interview unless the U.S. Attorney's Office obtained court-

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

outhern District of Florida DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Dear Mr. Eisenberg: 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the int

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

imile: February 5, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: n Dear Mr. Eisenberg: I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the interview with your client ("your client"), to occur February , 2007. As I mentioned earlier, M

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

Menchel with attached letter containing counter- proposal for plea to two years of 'supenised custody.' 9 8/24/2006- 10/24/2006 Entails betweenJim Eisenberg and Marie Villafana regarding #28 10 10/30/2006- 10/31-2006 Emails between Marie Vitt:liana and Guy Lewis regarding Lewis respresentation of Eps