Epstein Secrets

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

email from Jeff that said, "Hold the letter" (Exhibit B-54). On December 10, 2007, I contacted Jim Eisenberg, counsel for Individual # 28, who is Jane Doe #2 in the Jane Doe'. United States suit. As noted on the attached chart, Mr. Eisenberg was paid for by Mr. Epstein. I told Mr. Eisenberg that I was

ad been identified in the state investigation), alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The suit, which is still pending, is captioned Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 21 United States, 08-80736-CV-KAM. Page 3 of 58 EFTA00225046 set aside the NPA and see Mr. Epstein federally charged due to violatio

me, I can only say that my client does not want to do ei q of your suggestions. She does not want to give a statement under the irnmuni ed with its Kastigar exception and she does not want to test 5'h Amendment grounds. With this client, I am sorry, but I must have a formal grant of m it y f.re she wi

testimony solely as a vie 'm/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 Mftand intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to con

. The Court further finds that the United States has shown that: (1) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, that is, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736- Civ-Marra; (2) the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy;

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

ied female in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen- year-old girl. 17 (8) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl, for allowing an unidentified female to perform oral sex on Jane Doe #2 in EPSTEIN's presence. (9) On or

the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administra

scayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300

the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administra

l recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, including without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes. Request No. 9. (Not at is

the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administra

ing these protections meaningless in attempting EFTA00222075 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 to assert and argue the factual basis for the additional objections and privileges. See part ILA. herein. I. Defendant E

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,

9. On February 12, 2007, after another conversation where Mr. Eisenberg re-iterated Jane Doe 2's intent to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege and Jane Doe's refusal to testify without 6001 immunity, at my request, Mr. Eisenberg provided a letter detailing Jane Doe 2's concerns regarding testifying witho

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

ROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane Doe. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. : Good morning, Your Honor. Sid for Jane Doe II. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor

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

se he's an awesome guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing." 6. Other than these events, neither I nor any other FBI agent had any contact with Jane Doe #2 during the course of the investigation. Jane Doe #2 never contacted me or my co-case agents asking for information about the investigation or ask

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

Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2I United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, th